This decision relates to an appeal against a European patent application relating to the provision of geofencing to provide notice to a mobile device. The Council considered that dynamically changing the effective geographical boundaries of this mobile device solely based on the number of applications in the device, effectively reduces the load on the mobile device and prevents overload. Since this property of the mobile device is a permanent property of the device even if this property becomes apparent only in some overload conditions, it provides a reliable technical effect. Here are the practical points from Resolution T 2520/19 () of 02 February 2022 of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.02:
me. Dynamically changing the effective geographical boundaries of this mobile device is a technical matter
me. The claimed mobile device with its own processing of geofences in the event of implementing a large number of applications that actively use geofences Effectively reduce the load on the mobile device and prevent overload.
The artistic effect has been reliably achieved since then The mobile device feature is a permanent feature of the device even if this feature becomes apparent only under certain conditions of overload.
The invention relates to geofences to provide a notification to a mobile device. In order to focus the notification on promising customers, an entity, such as a restaurant, may create a geofence identifying which users may receive the notification. For example, only users who enter the specific area covered by the geofence boundaries can receive the notification.
Geofencing can be located in a variety of configurations, such as a circular area defined by a radius around the location of a restaurant, and can be based, for example, on latitude and longitude coordinates. In an area with a high density of geographic fences. This may cause the notifications to become overloaded.
In order to prevent a mobile device from being overloaded with notifications, geofences are handled differently when a mobile device implements a large number of applications (actively using geofences) by including a smaller area of geofences when the mobile device or group of mobile devices includes Small number of applications.
Figure 1 of the job application 2015/085176 A1
- Claim 1 (mobile device) for individual order
Is it patentable?
The First Class Examination Department determined that Claim Subject 1 lacked the inventive step beginning with disclosure of D4: US 2012/172027 A1. Distinctive features are identified as follows:
4.4 The Board agrees with the Examination and Appellant Section that the claimed invention differs from the D4 disclosure in that the mobile device is configured to handle multiple geofences differently based on a number of applications that effectively use geofences on the mobile device to prevent the mobile device from being loaded with notifications for fences Geofence, where when a mobile device implements a large number of applications that actively use geofences and go beyond geofence boundaries, the mobile device is configured to delay geofence recognition until the mobile device is closer to the center of an area defined by the geofence so that the recognized geofence includes a smaller area From geofences when a mobile device is executing a small number of applications that actively use geofences.
4.5 These various features provide an effect Prevent mobile device overloading from notifications (See the published application, para. 0031).
4.6 The Board agrees with the Examination Section that the substantive technical problem to be resolved by the invention thus prevents the mobile device from being overloaded with notifications.
In the first place, although the examination division agreed on the distinctive features and technical problem, it disagreed with the applicant that the claimed effect had already been achieved.
4.7 The Examination Section found that the Claim did not specify any kind of geo-relationship between the geofences detected by the mobile device, implying that the said geofence was, in most cases, distributed in such a way that the mobile device does not receive a large number of notifications When crossing the border of a geofence. As a result, the technical effect of preventing the mobile device from being overloaded with notifications was not achieved in most of the cases covered by the claim. The solution proposed in Claim 1 of the present Claim cannot therefore be considered to involve an inventive step (see Appealed Decision, Section 3.2, last two paragraphs).
The applicant successfully argued against this decision, and the Board agreed with the applicant.
4.8 The appellant argued that the effect of local processing on the mobile device led to the technical effect of Dynamically changing the effective geofence limit for this mobile device only. In this way, a single geofence created by a centralized geofencing system can have a diverse impact on geofencing processing through a large number of mobile devices. When the mobile device is already actively using a set of geofences, the overload of notification processing by the mobile device can be mitigated by delaying the recognition of the geofence to effectively reduce its area. The effect was also provided for non-overlapping areas of geofences when the mobile device was moving quickly. By delaying geofence recognition, notification processing overload can be avoided by providing a greater amount of time between notifications. For overlapping, partially overlapping, and separate geofences, the mobile device can encounter the technical issue of notification overload when moving relative to geofences. there was Thus a reliable technical effect of a number of configurations of geofences and mobile devices that fall within the scope of the claimed invention.
4.9 The Board shares the Appellant’s opinion. Claimed mobile device with Special treatment of geofences In the case of implementing a large number of applications that effectively use geofences, effectively reduces the load on the mobile device and prevents overloading. this is The mobile device feature is a permanent feature of the device even if this feature becomes apparent only under certain conditions of overload. Therefore, the Board considers the claimed subject matter to be a technical invention that includes technical means to solve the technical problem. The subject matter claimed was not proposed in Document D4 or any other prior technical document cited by the Examination Department.
Therefore, the subject of the claims was considered an inventive step, and an appeal is allowed by order of the grant of a patent.
You can read the entire decision here: T 2520/19 () of 02 February 2022 Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.02
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the topic. It is recommended to take the advice of specialists in such circumstances.