Obviousness

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9185522 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 9185522 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date: 2005-04-04). The analysis relies on the prior art explicitly mentioned and discussed within the patent document itself.

Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA in this field at the time of the invention would possess a solid understanding of wireless communication networks, cellular telephony, Global Positioning System (GPS) technology, client-server architectures, internet protocols (e.g., TCP/IP), and mobile and server-side software development. This individual would also be familiar with existing location-based services and their capabilities and limitations.

Prior Art Recognized in US Patent 9185522

The patent itself identifies several key pieces of prior art:

1. One-way Location Sharing Systems: The patent explicitly mentions "On Star and the Mercedes Benz TeleAid services" as examples of "one way location sharing prior art." These systems utilized "GPS receivers and cellular phone capability built into a car" to allow an "aid center" (a communications server) to "track cars all over the world and speak with the occupants and sense when the cars airbags have deployed." The patent notes that "None of these services allow the occupants of the car to know where the aid center is."
2. Kid Tracking Systems: "Other commercial services allow parents to track the locations of their children in a one way location sharing manner." The patent points out that "the prior art kid tracking systems could not be reconfigured in the field to add new individuals with whom location information was to be shared."
3. Web-Enabled GPS Cellular Devices and Infrastructure: The patent describes its own invention as contemplating "2.5 GHz and 3 GHz Java enabled, web enabled (or similar) cell phones and Personal Digital Assistants or other web enabled wireless products with global positioning system (GPS) receivers" and states that "the functionality implemented by the software of the invention utilizes existing platforms and infrastructure" and "do not require development of new cell phone or PDA technology nor do they require development of new cellular communication infrastructure."
4. E911 Requirements: The patent notes that the "Use and sale of an application that makes use of the on-board GPS capability of cell phones and PDAs built to comply with the E911 requirement allows the carriers to recoup some of the costs imposed upon them by the E911 requirement." This indicates that GPS integration into mobile phones and the infrastructure to process location data for emergency services was either established or rapidly developing.

Motivation to Combine and Obviousness

The patent itself identifies a critical "need" that the invention aims to fulfill: "Another need is for a system for use by motorists, hikers, pilots and boatmen to allow them to be able to contact rescuers and know the location of the rescuers as they come to the aid of the stranded person and to allow the rescuers to know the location of the victims they are trying to rescue." This explicitly articulates the motivation for mutual location sharing and dynamic, in-field buddy list management, particularly in emergency contexts, directly addressing the limitations of the known one-way tracking systems.

Combination: One-Way Location Tracking Systems (OnStar/TeleAid) + Web-Enabled GPS Cellular Devices + Standard Server-Client Programming

A PHOSITA, aware of the limitations of the existing one-way location tracking systems (e.g., OnStar, TeleAid, kid trackers) and motivated by the recognized need for mutual location awareness and dynamic group formation, would have found it obvious to combine these known technologies.

Obviousness of Claim 1 (Method Claim):

Claim 1 describes a method where a communications server receives a request from a first wireless device to share content with a second wireless device, determines their relative proximity, and transmits content based on this proximity.

1. Communications server receiving a request from a first wireless device to share content with a second wireless device:

   • Prior Art: OnStar's "aid center" (a communications server) already received location data and initiated communications with a tracked vehicle (a wireless device). Web-enabled cellular phones were capable of sending data requests (e.g., TCP/IP packets) to servers over the internet.
   • Motivation: Given the stated "need" for mutual awareness, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to extend the server's role from passively receiving data or initiating one-way communication to actively brokering explicit "requests to share content" (such as location) between two mobile devices. This addresses the limitation of prior art systems that could not be "reconfigured in the field to add new individuals with whom location information was to be shared."

2. Determining relative proximity between the first and second wireless devices:

   • Prior Art: OnStar and E911 systems already received absolute GPS coordinates from mobile devices. Calculating the relative distance or proximity between two known GPS coordinates is a fundamental, routine computational geometry task well within the skill set of a PHOSITA.
   • Motivation: To enable features like displaying both devices on a map relative to each other, generating proximity-based alerts, or facilitating rendezvous (e.g., rescuer finding a stranded person).

3. Transmitting content to at least one of the first and second wireless devices based on the determined proximity:

   • Prior Art: OnStar systems transmitted "content" (e.g., voice communication, emergency signals) in response to events like airbag deployment, which represents a trigger based on proximity to a specific condition (a crash). Standard cellular networks were capable of transmitting various types of data as "content."
   • Motivation: To fulfill the need for mutual location awareness in an effective and user-friendly manner. For instance, if two devices are far apart, periodic location updates might be sufficient. As they draw closer (changing proximity), more detailed map views or real-time tracking (more frequent content updates) would be transmitted. The "Mapit" function described in the patent directly illustrates this type of proximity-based content (map display of locations). This is a logical extension of existing event-triggered content delivery to a scenario of continuous, relative proximity.

Obviousness of Claim 11 (Method Claim for Emergency Content):

Claim 11 adds the specificity that the transmitted content comprises an emergency message.

1. Receiving a request and determining proximity: These elements are obvious for the same reasons as in Claim 1.
2. Transmitting content... based on the determined proximity, wherein the content comprises an emergency message:
   • Prior Art: OnStar's automatic crash notification (triggered by airbag deployment) already involved transmitting an emergency signal or initiating an emergency call. The E911 mandate further reinforced the ability of cellular systems to provide location data for emergency services.
   • Motivation: Given the explicit "need" for rescuers and victims to know each other's locations during emergencies, a PHOSITA would be motivated to enhance existing emergency response capabilities. Combining the proximity-based content transmission of Claim 1 with established emergency notification (like OnStar's system or E911) would be a natural step. The patent itself details how an "SOS alert message" containing location and a prerecorded voice message is sent by the "Buddy Watch server" to designated "buddies" in an emergency, which can be triggered by dialing "911". This directly addresses the goal of empowering "buddies" to assist and "decrease the load on the 911 system."

Obviousness of Claim 12 (Apparatus Claim):

Claim 12 describes a communications server configured to perform the method steps of Claim 1.

• Prior Art: Communications servers, such as the "aid center" in OnStar, were known entities. General internet servers capable of handling web traffic and data requests were also common.
• Motivation: If the method of Claim 1 is obvious, then configuring an existing communications server (hardware) with the necessary software and components to perform that obvious method would be a routine engineering task for a PHOSITA. The patent itself positions the "Buddy WatchTM server" as the central component, working within "existing platforms and infrastructure."

Obviousness of Claim 18 (Computer-Readable Medium Claim):

Claim 18 covers a computer-readable medium with instructions to cause a computer to perform the method of Claim 1.

• Prior Art: Computer-readable media (e.g., hard drives, memory) for storing software instructions were standard. Software development environments and programming languages (e.g., Java, as mentioned in the patent) were widely used for creating applications for both servers and mobile devices.
• Motivation: If the method of Claim 1 is obvious, then implementing that method as software instructions and storing those instructions on a computer-readable medium is an obvious step for any software engineer (a PHOSITA). This is a standard means of developing and deploying new functionalities on existing computing platforms.

In conclusion, the deficiencies of the known prior art (one-way tracking, static buddy lists) combined with the explicit "needs" articulated within the patent for mutual, dynamic, and proximity-based content sharing (especially for emergencies), would have provided ample motivation for a PHOSITA to combine existing technologies (one-way tracking systems, web-enabled GPS phones, and standard server-side programming) to arrive at the claimed invention. The core functionality of determining proximity and transmitting content based on it represents a logical and obvious extension of established location-based services and communication protocols.