DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 01/21/2026, the claims objections of claims 21-30 have been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment filed 01/21/2026, the claims rejection of claims 22-30, 36 and 37 under 35 USC 112, second paragraph have been withdrawn. However, a new ground of rejection of claim 22 is made in view of the amendment.
The applicants stated a terminal disclaimer with respect to US Patent No. 8,265,938 and US Patent No. 11,403,932 is filed with the amendment, but such terminal disclaimer cannot be found. The non-statutory double patenting rejection is thus maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 21 and 31 regarding text-to-speech conversion have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In particular, Rosentel et al. (US 2011/0095881) has been cited to address this matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 22 is incomplete. To advance prosecution, this claim will be treated by its previous version but depending on claim 21.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
8. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 in view of Rosentel et al. (US 2011/009588, “Rosentel” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations except converting with a text-to-speech engine a text message indicative of the emergency situation into a digitized voice alert. Rosentel teaches an audio emergency alert message may be generated by using text-to-speech technology. This text-to-speech conversion may be accomplished at the alert server ([0122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to generate an audio emergency alert message by converting a text emergency alert message using a text-to-speech engine, so as to play the emergency message via speakers to alert many people.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 26, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 27, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 30, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 31, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 34 and 35, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 36, claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 37, claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 38 and 39, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations except a computer-usable medium, a processor and a data bus connecting the processor and the computer-usable medium. However, the use of processor to execute instructions stored in a computer-usable medium to perform certain function is well-known (official notice is taken here) for the advantage of adaptivity and flexibility. It would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to implement the method steps of claim 7 of US Patent No. 8,265,938 at the time the invention was made for the advantage of adaptivity and flexibility.
Regarding claim 40, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,265,938 covers all claimed limitations. except a computer-usable medium, a processor and a data bus connecting the processor and the computer-usable medium. However, the use of processor to execute instructions stored in a computer-usable medium to perform certain function is well-known (official notice is taken here) for the advantage of adaptivity and flexibility. It would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to implement the method steps of claim 8 of US Patent No. 8,265,938 at the time the invention was made for the advantage of adaptivity and flexibility.
9. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 . in view of Rosentel et al. (US 2011/009588, “Rosentel” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 21, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations except converting with a text-to-speech engine a text message indicative of the emergency situation into a digitized voice alert. Rosentel teaches an audio emergency alert message may be generated by using text-to-speech technology. This text-to-speech conversion may be accomplished at the alert server ([0122]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to generate an audio emergency alert message by converting a text emergency alert message using a text-to-speech engine, so as to play the emergency message via speakers to alert many people.
Regarding claims 22 and 23, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 26, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 27, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 28 and 29, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 30, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 31, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 34 and 35, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 36, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 37, claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 38 and 39, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations except a computer-usable medium, a processor and a data bus connecting the processor and the computer-usable medium. However, the use of processor to execute instructions stored in a computer-usable medium to perform certain function is well-known (official notice is taken here) for the advantage of adaptivity and flexibility. It would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to implement the method steps of claim 6 of US Patent No. 11,403,932 at the time the invention was made for the advantage of adaptivity and flexibility.
Regarding claim 40, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,403,932 covers all claimed limitations. except a computer-usable medium, a processor and a data bus connecting the processor and the computer-usable medium. However, the use of processor to execute instructions stored in a computer-usable medium to perform certain function is well-known (official notice is taken here) for the advantage of adaptivity and flexibility. It would be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to implement the method steps of claim 7 of US Patent No. 11,403,932 at the time the invention was made for the advantage of adaptivity and flexibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
10. Claims 21-25, 30-35 and 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sennett et al (US8,832,731, “Sennett” hereinafter) in view of Rosentel et al. (US 2011/009588, “Rosentel” hereinafter) and Varney et al. (US Patent No. 7,212,506, “Varney” hereinafter).
Claims 21 and 31.
Sennett discloses a method and system including a processor (claim 8) for providing instant emergency voice alerts to wireless hand held device (124 in Fig. 7) users, the method comprising:
determining an emergency situation affecting a specified region and requiring emergency notification of the emergency situation to wireless hand-held device users in the specified region (emergency alert network 110 determines an emergency situation such as a geographical alert e.g., landslide or flood (see Abstract)) ;
generating a text message (EAS) indicative of the emergency situation; and
transmitting the alert through a cellular communications network serving the specified region for distribution of an emergency announcement about the emergency situation provided by the alert to at least one wireless hand-held device in communication with specific towers (116 in Fig. 7, also see col. 11, line 11-12; base station is a tower) of the cellular communications network in the specified region (wireless broadcast network 116 transmits the EAS to mobile devices 124).
Sennett further teaches that the EAS message can also be an audio message (col. 3, line 29-32), but does not specifically mention the audio EAS message is generated by converting with a text-to-speech engine a text EAS message into a digital EAS voice alert. Rosentel teaches an audio emergency alert message may be generated by using text-to-speech technology. This text-to-speech conversion may be accomplished at the alert server ([0122], [0011]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to generate a digital audio emergency alert message by converting a text emergency alert message using a text-to-speech engine before audio EAS is transmitted, so as to play the emergency message via speakers to alert many people.
Sennett in view of Rosentel does not explicitly mention that the towers and the at least one wireless hand-held device are located in a specific region affected by the emergency situation. Varney teaches a base station, i.e., a tower, broadcasts/communicates emergency alert message to at least one wireless hand held device located in the coverage area of the base station (see claims 1, 3, 13 and 15), wherein the at least one wireless hand held device is affected by emergency situations such as a natural disaster (col. 1, lines 26-57, also see col. 6, lines 6-44) so as to provide guaranteed wireless communication service to the hand held device affected by the emergency situations. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the towers and the at least one wireless hand-held device in a specific region affected by the emergency situation to provide guaranteed wireless communication service to the hand-held device affected by the emergency situations.
Claims 22,32.
Sennett discloses broadcasting the EAS message through the at least one wireless hand-held device in at least one language. See Fig.1 showing multiple languages. With the teaching of Davis, the EAS messages would have been transmitted in at least one language.
Claims 23,33.
Sennett discloses the at least one language is based on a language setting in a user profile. Col.2:62-65 teaches one language, i.e., English set as default on the device.
Claims 24,34.
Sennett discloses pre-selecting the at least one language. See Fig.1.
Claims 25,35.
Sennett discloses the at least one language is based on a language setting in a user profile. Col.2:62-65 teaches one language, i.e., English set as default on the device. Thus, the at least one language is pre- selected from a user profile.
Claims 30,40
Sennett in view of Rosentel/Varney discloses converting the digitized voice alert into at least one language for broadcast of the digitized voice alert in the at least one language through the at least one wireless hand-held device in communication the cellular communications network. See Fig.8 of Sennett showing a cellular network for implementing a multiple language EAS alert.
11. Claims 26, 27, 36 and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sennett et al (US8,832,731, “Sennett” hereinafter) in view of Rosentel et al. (US 2011/009588, “Rosentel” hereinafter) and Varney et al. (US Patent No. 7,212,506, “Varney” hereinafter) as applied to claims 23 and 33 above respectively, and further in view of Velazquez et al (US2011/0088058).
Sennett in view of Rosentel/Varney discloses all the claimed subject matter except for establishing the user profile as a user preference via a server that communicates with the cellular communications network. Velazquez et al teaches storing user profiles in a database configured by users via a server so that an EAS message can be transmitted in a preferred language. See paragraph [0031].
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to establish user profiles via a server or intelligent router (104) in the method of Sennett et al modified by Rosentel/Varney for the purpose of providing an EAS message in a desired language as taught by Velazquez et al.
12. Claims 28, 29, 38 and 39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sennett et al (US8832731, “Sennett” hereinafter) in view of Rosentel et al. (US 2011/009588, “Rosentel” hereinafter) and Varney et al. (US Patent No. 7,212,506, “Varney” hereinafter) as applied to claims 20, 30 above respectively, and further in view of Wagner (US 10,049,384).
Sennett in view of Rosentel/Varney fails to teach interrupting a current call of the at least one wireless hand-held device in order to play/push the digitized voice alert on the at least one wireless hand-held device. Wagner teaches interrupting a call in progress to deliver an emergency notification as a function of priority and importance. See col.11, lines 9-45. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the filing of the present application to add a call interrupting feature in the method of Sennett et al modified by Davis for the purpose of delivering a high priority/importance emergency messages to the device users, as taught by Wagner.
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chieh M Fan whose telephone number is (571)272-3042. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHIEH M FAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2632
