DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the mobile communication device” in line 14 should read –the first mobile communication device-- Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation in claim 2 is recited in claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, and 5-10 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan et al (Pub. No.: US 2006/027620 A1, hereinafter Radhakrishnan) in view of Raghunath (US 7525568 B2), and further in view of Diacakis et al (Pub. No.: US 2004/0185875 A1, hereinafter Diacakis).
Consider claim 1, Radhakrishnan a method comprising:
receiving at a server a geographic location of a first mobile communication device (The clients 18 are also capable of transmitting messages to the server 14…the messages can include information such as an officer's or suspect's location (e.g., latitude, longitude, altitude, or intersection), paragraph 29);
maintaining a record of the location in the server of the first mobile
communication device and the location of a second communication device (The clients 18 are also capable of transmitting messages to the server 14…the messages can include information such as an officer's or suspect's location (e.g., latitude, longitude, altitude, or intersection), paragraph 29);
providing a map on a display of the first communication device, the map including the location of the first mobile communication device (if the officer associated with the client 18a is "in pursuit" of a suspect, then the officer can indicate to the server 14 via the client 18a that the officer is in pursuit by transmitting one or more pursuit status messages to the server 14. The server 14 can then transmit the pursuit messages to the mailboxes of the other clients 18b, 18c and 18d so that the other officers can receive information relating to the pursuit. In one embodiment, the pursuit status messages include information indicative of the current location of the client 18a (and thus the officer associated therewith). For example, the pursuit status messages can provide location information, which can then be broadcasted to the other officers via their clients 18b, 18c and 18d, paragraph 29; Once the pursuit status messages are received, …the clients 18b, 18c and 18d can output the location information to the other officers., the clients 18b, 18c and 18d can display the location information visually, such as tracking a marker on a map, paragraph 39);
providing one or more of text-based, multimedia-based, image-based, voice-based and video-based communications to the first communication device (the clients 18 are capable of receiving data signals or "messages" from the server 14 or other clients, and then outputting the information in the messages in a manner perceivable by the officers, either visually or audibly, or both. The clients 18 are also capable of transmitting messages to the server 14, which can then be transmitted by the server 14 to other clients 18 or devices and the clients 18 are also capable of sending messages to other clients 18 directly as in the case of the peer-to-peer architecture shown in FIG. 16. Such messages are indicative of text, images and/or audio, paragraph 29);
providing instructions to the first mobile communication device without input from a user to take one more of pictures, video, and audio recordings;
receiving the picture, video or recording at the server and forwarding the picture, video or recording to the second communication device(The clients 18 are also capable of transmitting messages to the server 14, which can then be transmitted by the server 14 to other clients 18 …. Such messages are indicative of text, images and/or audio, paragraph 29).
While Radhakrishnan discloses that clients 18 are capable of transmitting messages including live video, text, images and/or audio to server 14 and also directly to other clients 18 (see paragraph 29), Radhakrishnan does not explicitly disclose providing instructions to the first mobile communication device without input from a user to take one more of pictures, video, and audio recordings, or monitoring of the location of the mobile communication device relative to one or more perimeters, and taking one or more actions based on a crossing of a perimeter.
In the same field of endeavor, Raghunath discloses providing instructions to the first mobile communication device without input from a user to take one more of pictures, video, and audio recordings (the multi-information recording device 102 may detect from timestamps in the signals being received from the user's vehicle 112 that there is a minimum distance between the multi-information recording device 102 and the user's vehicle 112, and thus automatically begins recording information, col. 6, ll. -23-26).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have the mobile computer system associated with an officer in Radhakrishnan to take one more of pictures, video, and audio recordings without input from a user because as acknowledged in Raghunath recording trigger mechanisms can be cumbersome and difficult to use, thereby enabling police officers to forgo using the trigger mechanism when engaged in a task requiring intense concentration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Raghunath with the teachings of Radhakrishnan to make the process of automatically recording multiple types of information.
Nonetheless, the combination of Radhakrishnan and Raghunath does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause monitoring of the location of the mobile communication device relative to one or more perimeters, and taking one or more actions based on a crossing of a perimeter.
In the same field of endeavor Diacakis discloses monitoring the location of the mobile communications device relative to one or more perimeters, and taking one or more actions based on a crossing of a perimeter (a query (522) is made as to whether the wireless unit of interest 102 is within an area where surreptitious location monitoring is authorized and if so, the privacy settings are overridden, see paragraph 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Diacakis with the teachings of Radhakrishnan as modified by Raghunath to monitor the location of a wireless unit free of any privy settings associated with the wireless unit.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1 above, Diacakis discloses monitoring the location of the first mobile communications device relative to one or more perimeters, and taking one or more actions based on a crossing of a perimeter (a query (522) is made as to whether the wireless unit of interest 102 is within an area where surreptitious location monitoring is authorized and if so, the privacy settings are overridden, see paragraph 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Diacakis with the teachings of Radhakrishnan as modified by Raghunath to monitor the location of a wireless unit free of any privy settings associated with the wireless unit.
Consider claim 3 and as applied to claim 1 above, Radhakrishnan discloses establishing peer-to-peer communications between the first mobile communication device and second communication device (While using the peer-to-peer system 10a the information is exchanged among the clients 18 continuously at frequent intervals of time, see paragraph 77).
Consider claim 5, and as applied to claim 1 above, Radhakrishnan discloses establishing communication between the first mobile communication device and second communication device, the server and another endpoint (The dispatcher unit 28 allows the dispatcher to send and receive messages from the clients 18 via the server 14, see Fig. 1 and paragraph 33).
Consider claim 6, and as applied to claim 1 above, Diacakis discloses the server sending to the first communication device one or more of software, parameters and communication updates in a manner undetectable by the user of the first communication device (a query (522) is made as to whether the wireless unit of interest 102 is within an area where surreptitious location monitoring is authorized and if so, the privacy settings are overridden, see paragraph 47).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Diacakis with the teachings of Radhakrishnan as modified by Raghunath to monitor the location of a wireless unit free of any privy settings associated with the wireless unit.
Consider claim 7, and as applied to claim 1 above, Radhakrishnan discloses wherein the first mobile communication device is tagged by the server in a manner that allows tracking thereof (once the pursuit status messages are received, the clients 18b, 18c and 18d can output the location information to the other officers, the clients 18b, 18c and 18d can display the location information visually, such as tracking a marker on a map, paragraphs 39 and 52).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Radhakrishnan discloses causing the first mobile communication device to enter a special operational mode, wherein it performs one or more automated functions (the OfficerAssistant further includes a "Pursuit" button, as shown best in FIGS. 8 and 14, which allows the officer to indicate that the officer is in pursuit mode; once the Pursuit button is enabled, the location.
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, Radhakrishnan discloses, causing the first mobile communication device to perform one or more automatic functions (create an audible alert alarm, paragraph 48).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, Radhakrishnan discloses causing the server to maintain real time location information of the first mobile communication device and to exchange one or more of text-based, multimedia-based, image-based, voice-based and video-based communications with the second mobile communication device (the clients 18 are capable of receiving data signals or "messages" from the server 14 or other clients, such messages are indicative of text, images and/or audio, e.g. ‘live’ video feed. For example, the messages can include information such as an officer's or suspect's location, see paragraph 29).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan in view of Raghunath, further in view of Diacakis ,and further in view of Phillips et al (Pub.: No.: US 2007/0244633, hereinafter Phillips).
Consider claim 4, and as applied to claim 1 above, Radhakrishnan as modified by Raghunath and further modified by Diacakis does not expressly disclose managing functionality of either the first or the second mobile communication device based on one or more of remaining battery power and mission information.
In the same field of endeavor Phillips discloses managing functionality of either the first or the second mobile communication device based on one or more of remaining battery power and mission information (a power management application may manage the use of a location-based applicationbased on the location of a user to preserve battery life in a portable electronic facility 300, see paragraph 159).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Phillips with the teachings of Radhakrishnan as modified by Raghunath and further modified by Diacakis to reduce power consumption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11-20 are allowed in view of the terminal disclaimer filed on 7/28/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERMAN VIANA DI PRISCO whose telephone number is (571)270-1781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:30-5:00 EST.
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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571) 272-7915. 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.
/GERMAN VIANA DI PRISCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642