DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references Kato et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20110313594) and Malik et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160261996) fails to show certain features of applicant’s invention (i.e. a management device configured to update the emergency call state information in storage).
The Applicant specifically argued and/or stated that: “Malik relates to technology for storing and updating emergency communication state information in memory within a wireless communication terminal”.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
In this case, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments because of the following reasons:
First, Kato, e.g. fig. 1, fig. 3, and pp0026, discussed the concept wherein the service center including a server 24, receives emergency mode information e.g. emergency communication (i.e. claimed emergency call state) and remote-control request signal (i.e. claimed service request), and then based on the emergency mode information, transmit the remote-control request signal to a vehicle.
Although, Kato fails to explicitly teach that the server (i.e. device) updates the emergency mode information e.g. emergency communication (i.e. claimed emergency call state).
In an analogous field endeavor, Malik, e.g. fig. 1, fig. 5, pp0005, and pp0061, discussed the concept of a device performing the function of updating emergency communication status in a wireless communication system.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato (i.e. a device to receive emergency mode information and/or remote-control request) with the teachings of Malik (i.e. a device that stores and/or updates emergency communication status) to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing a communication device from being unintentionally powered off or an emergency call from being unintentionally terminated in a communication system (Malik, pp0001).
Secondly, the Applicant’s claimed invention simply discussed “a service request processing apparatus” capable of performing the function of storing and/or updating emergency call state. Therefore, the claim does not uniquely and/or particularly define "a... processing apparatus" so as to distinguish from the applied prior art wherein Malik teaches “a wireless communication device” coupled in a wireless communication system and capable of performing the function of storing and/or updating emergency communication status. Therefore, it would have been an obvious modification for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato and Malik as discussed above.
Therefore, the previous rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US Publication No. 20110313594) in view of Malik et al. (US Publication No. 20160261996).
As to claims 1 and 8, Kato teaches a service request processing apparatus for a modem for a vehicle comprising (fig. 1, #23, #12, #10, and pp0019): a receiver configured to receive emergency call state information generated based on a connection state of an emergency call service of a vehicle (fig. 1, pp0070, the occupant in the vehicle 12 explains to the operator 28 about the situation through the handsfree device 80 and asks the operator 28 to arrange, for example, an emergency vehicle 98, and pp0025), and a service request (i.e. remote control request) for attempting a communication connection to the vehicle from a sender (fig. 1, pp0026, remote control request from the operator 28 operating the call center device 26 or from the user 22 operating the mobile information terminal 32, the server 24 generates a remote-control request signal Srr for remotely controlling an on-vehicle device of the vehicle 12, and pp0072); a service request processor configured to retrieve the emergency call state information in a storage in response to the service request, and to determine whether to transmit the service request to the vehicle based on the emergency call state information (fig. 1, fig. 3, S8, based on emergency mode e.g. emergency communication or talk with operator 28 via server 24, and pp0026, server 24 then transmits the generated remote-control request signal Srr through the service center 23 and the mobile communication network 30 to the vehicle 12, and pp0072); and a transmitter configured to transmit the service request to the vehicle under a control of the service request processor (fig. 1, pp0026, server 24 then transmits the generated remote-control request signal Srr through the service center 23 and the mobile communication network 30 to the vehicle 12, and pp0067, pp0073). However, Kato fails to explicitly teach the concept of a management device configured to update the emergency call state information in storage.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Malik teaches the concept of a management device configured to update the emergency call state information in storage (fig. 5, #504, #514, pp0005, and pp0061, updating the emergency communication status in the memory in response to the communication session ending). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato with the teachings of Malik to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing information to prevent a wireless communication device from being unintentionally powered off or an emergency call from being unintentionally terminated in a communication system (Malik, pp0001).
As to claims 2 and 9, Kato in view of Malik teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Kato further teaches wherein the transmitter transmits the service request to the modem in the vehicle, which connects the emergency call service (fig. 1, pp0070, the occupant in the vehicle 12 explains to the operator 28 about the situation through the handsfree device 80 and asks the operator 28 to arrange, for example, an emergency vehicle 98, and pp0026, server 24 then transmits the generated remote-control request signal Srr through the service center 23 and the mobile communication network 30 to the vehicle 12).
As to claims 3 and 10, Kato in view of Malik teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Kato further teaches wherein the transmitter transmits a connected service request for attempting remote control of the vehicle as the service request (fig. 1, fig. 3, pp0026, pp0073, receives the remote-control request signal Srr transmitted from outside the vehicle 12 having the on-vehicle device 67 which is remotely controllable).
As to claims 4 and 11, Kato in view of Malik teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the management device updates the emergency call state information to the storage by designating any one of an end state, an operation state, and a callback state.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Malik teaches the concept wherein the management device updates the emergency call state information to the storage by designating any one of an end state, an operation state, and a callback state (fig. 5, #504, #514, pp0005, and pp0061, updating the emergency communication status in the memory in response to the communication session ending). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato with the teachings of Malik to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing information to prevent a wireless communication device from being unintentionally powered off or an emergency call from being unintentionally terminated in a communication system (Malik, pp0001).
As to claims 5 and 12, Kato in view of Malik teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Kato further teaches wherein the service request processor transmits the service request to the vehicle through the transmitter, based on whether the emergency call state information is the end state or the callback state (fig. 1, fig. 3, S8, No emergency mode (i.e. end state), pp0067, received remote-control request signal Srr, is not permitted to be executed).
Claim(s) 7 and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kato et al. (US Publication No. 20110313594) in view of Malik et al. (US Publication No. 20160261996) and further in view of Hossain et al. (US Publication No. 20040242191).
As to claims 7 and 14, Kato in view of Malik teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, failed to explicitly teach wherein the service request processor rejects the service request based on the emergency call state information being the operation state.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Hossain teaches the concept wherein the service request processor rejects the service request based on the emergency call state information being the operation state (fig. 2, #40, #48, Abs, pp0017, wherein during an emergency call attempt or callback said emergency service module directs said microprocessor to ignore service requests (e.g. non-voice) from said network). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kato and Malik with the teachings of Hossain to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably enhancing the probability of successful emergency call completion and successful callback from emergency service centre in particular (Hossain, pp0002).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights