Obviousness

Obviousness of US patent 9736618 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

A patent claim is considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) at the time the invention was made. The determination of obviousness involves considering the scope and content of the prior art, the differences between the prior art and the claims, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and secondary considerations of non-obviousness. A claimed invention can be rendered obvious by a single prior art reference or a combination of references. The Supreme Court case KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. established that a combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it yields predictable results. The examiner must articulate a rationale for combining references to support a conclusion of obviousness.

A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) is presumed to be aware of all relevant prior art and capable of understanding and applying it in a routine manner.

The prior art section of US9736618B1 mentions "the one way location sharing prior art" which includes services like OnStar and Mercedes Benz TeleAid, where a center can track cars, communicate with occupants, and detect airbag deployment. It also notes "Other commercial services allow parents to track the locations of their children in a one way location sharing manner." The patent distinguishes itself by stating, "None of these services allow the occupants of the car to know where the aid center is or allows the children to know where their parents are." This suggests that the core innovative aspect of US9736618B1 lies in mutual location sharing, where all parties in a defined group can see each other's locations.

The patent further describes the need for a system for motorists, hikers, pilots, and boatmen to contact rescuers and know the location of the rescuers, while also allowing rescuers to know the location of victims. It emphasizes the capability of cell phones to be reconfigured "in the field" to add an "instant buddy" for location sharing, and notes 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."

Given this, a POSITA (e.g., a software developer or telecommunications engineer familiar with mobile device technologies, GPS, and networked applications) at the time of the invention (priority date April 4, 2005) would have been aware of:

• GPS technology: Widely available in devices, including some mobile phones and dedicated navigation systems, for determining absolute location.
• Cellular communication networks: Standard for transmitting voice and data (e.g., SMS, early forms of internet data via GPRS/EDGE).
• Server-client architectures: Common for providing network-based services.
• Mapping services: Online mapping services were emerging and becoming more sophisticated.
• One-way location tracking: As explicitly stated in the patent, systems like OnStar and "kid tracking systems" existed for one-way location monitoring.

Here are some combinations of prior art that could render certain claims of US9736618 obvious:

Obviousness of Claim 1 (Mutual Location Sharing)

Claim 1 describes a method where a first and second wireless device couple to a server, collect their respective position data, and the server processes and exchanges this data so each device receives the other's position.

Combination of Prior Art:

1. Existing one-way location tracking systems (e.g., OnStar, parental tracking services): These systems already demonstrated the capability of mobile devices to determine their GPS location, transmit that location over a wireless network to a central server, and for that server to process and store location data.
2. General knowledge of client-server communication and data exchange: A POSITA would understand that if a server receives data from multiple clients, it can easily re-distribute that data to other authorized clients. This is a fundamental aspect of network communication.
3. Desire for enhanced communication and coordination: The patent itself identifies a "need" for individuals to know the location of rescuers and vice-versa, or for parents to know where their children are and for children to know where their parents are. This explicitly states a motivation to move beyond one-way tracking.

Motivation for Combination:

A POSITA, seeing the limitations of existing one-way location sharing systems (where the tracked party or a peer couldn't see the tracker's location), would be motivated to enhance these systems to provide mutual location awareness. Given that devices could already send their location to a central server, and the server could store and display this information, it would be a predictable extension to configure the server to send the received location data back to other authorized devices in a group. For example, if a parent could see a child's location via a server, and the child's device was also GPS-enabled and connected to the same server, it would be a straightforward engineering task to allow the child's device to request and display the parent's location (also provided by the server). The mechanism for data exchange (e.g., TCP/IP packets over cellular networks) was already established for general data communication and even for the existing one-way tracking.

Obviousness of Claim 10 (Personal Bread Crumbs with Distress Functionality)

Claim 10 describes a "personal bread crumbs" mode where a mobile device signals a server that the mode is active, a timer starts, and if the user doesn't respond to an "OK" message after timeout, distress messages are sent with location data to pre-selected contacts.

Combination of Prior Art:

1. GPS-enabled mobile devices capable of storing waypoints (bread crumbs): The patent itself refers to "personal bread crumbs mode" where the "phone stores waypoints of the position of the holder of the phone periodically". Dedicated handheld GPS devices already had this functionality. Integrating GPS receivers into mobile phones was also known (e.g., for E911 compliance).
2. Mobile device communication and messaging capabilities (calls, SMS, email): Standard features of mobile phones.
3. Emergency services (e.g., 911) and one-way distress systems (e.g., OnStar's crash detection and call center notification): OnStar, as mentioned in the patent, could "sense when the cars airbags have deployed" and enable communication with an aid center. This demonstrates automated emergency notification with location.
4. Timer-based "check-in" systems: While not necessarily on mobile devices for distress, the concept of a timer-based check-in, where a lack of response triggers an alert, is a general concept applicable in various monitoring systems.

Motivation for Combination:

A POSITA, observing the existing emergency response capabilities (like OnStar's automated crash notification with location) and the increasing capability of mobile phones to store location history (bread crumbs) and communicate, would be motivated to create a more generalized "man-down" or personal safety system. The patent identifies a "need" for a system to allow users to contact rescuers and for rescuers to know victim locations. By combining the ability of a phone to track its own path (bread crumbs) with its existing communication capabilities and the concept of an automated distress signal (as seen in OnStar), adding a "check-in" timer and automated message sending in case of no response would be a logical and predictable step to address personal safety needs. The "Are you OK?" prompt and subsequent distress message sending with location history directly maps to an evolution of existing emergency notification and tracking systems, particularly to address situations where a user might be incapacitated or unable to manually request help.

Obviousness of Claim 18 & 20 (Workgroup Location Sharing with Supervisor Controls)

Claims 18 and 20 relate to workgroup location sharing with hierarchical control, specifically preventing employees from removing a supervisor and defining active sharing hours.

Combination of Prior Art:

1. Mutual location sharing systems (as in Claim 1): The foundation of multiple users seeing each other's locations.
2. Existing "kid tracking systems" or corporate fleet tracking: These systems established the concept of a supervisor (parent/employer) monitoring the location of others (child/employee). The patent acknowledges "Other commercial services allow parents to track the locations of their children in a one way location sharing manner."
3. User authentication and access control systems: Common in networked applications and IT systems for managing permissions and preventing unauthorized changes. For example, administrative passwords or user roles were well-known for controlling who can change settings or access certain information.
4. Time-based scheduling/control in software applications: Many software applications allowed for features to be enabled or disabled based on time schedules (e.g., parental controls on computers, scheduled tasks).

Motivation for Combination:

A POSITA, tasked with adapting a mutual location sharing system for a corporate or parental supervision context (which the patent explicitly identifies as a "need" for businesses to "easily identify which service persons are closest to the next job" and for "Parents [to] keep track of where their kids are"), would naturally introduce administrative controls.

For Claim 18, the motivation to prevent an employee or child from disabling tracking or removing a supervisor is directly driven by the supervisory nature of the application. Implementing a passcode, known only to the supervisor, to control these critical settings is a standard and predictable application of access control principles in any system requiring hierarchical management. This ensures the integrity of the supervisory function.

For Claim 20, limiting location sharing to specific working hours (e.g., Monday to Friday) is a direct response to privacy concerns and practical business needs. Employers would typically only need to track employees during work hours. Implementing this as a configurable setting within the server-side logic (which manages the location data exchange) is a routine application of time-based access control, a common feature in many enterprise software and parental control solutions of the time.