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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Preliminary Amendment
Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 11/9/2022 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, 19 and 20 are amended, claims 6, 12, 16-18 and 21-26 are canceled, and claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, 19 and 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/5/2025, with respect to restriction requirement have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction requirement has been withdrawn. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-15, 19 and 20 are current pending.
Priority
This application is a 35 U.S.C. 371 national phase filing of International Application No. PCT/SE2020/050484, filed May 12, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 11/9/2022, 12/30/2024 and 4/30/2025 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “User Equipment, UE” on line 2, Examiner suggests changing the limitation to “User Equipment (UE)”. Claim 1 further recites “the UE users potentially want to avoid” on line 4. Examiner understand the meaning of the limitation, however suggests changing the limitation to “wherein the UE users avoid said event”.
Claims 7, 13 and 19 recite similar features as claim 1, therefore are objected for same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “characteristics of the event such as type and magnitude of the event” on line 2. Examiner suggests changing the limitation to “characteristics of the event including type and magnitude of the event”.
Claim 7 further recites “notifying the user of the UE” on line 9, Examiner suggests changing the limitation to “notifying a user of the UE”.
Claim 11 recites similar features as claim 5, therefore is objected for same reason as discussed above regarding claim 5.
Claim 19 recites “notify the UE user” on line 9, Examiner suggests changing the limitation to “notify a user of the UE”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 5 has different color and/or color intensity from other figures in the drawing and is less legible. Examiner suggests replacing Figure 5 with a clear illustration. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term Wi-Fi, UTRAN, HSPA, 3GPP, LTE, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-5 and 13-15 are directed to abstract idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, for example detect an event, storing information about the detected event, and transmitting an indication of the event to a user equipment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such.
Claim 1 recites limitations, “A method performed by at least one network node for enabling notifications to User Equipment, UE, users, wherein the method comprises: detecting that an event associated with a non-radio degradation has occurred in a radio coverage area served by the network node, wherein the UE users potentially want to avoid said event; storing information about the detected event in a server, wherein the information comprises at least a location of the event; and transmitting an indication of the event, wherein the indication indicates that said information is available in the server, and wherein the indication instructs one or more UEs in the radio coverage area to retrieve said information from the server as a basis for deciding whether a UE user should be notified about the event or not”. Since the claim is directed to a process, i.e., a method, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites detecting that an event associated with a non-radio degradation has occurred in a radio coverage area served by the network node, wherein the UE users potentially want to avoid said event; storing information about the detected event in a server, wherein the information comprises at least a location of the event; and transmitting an indication of the event, wherein the indication indicates that said information is available in the server, and wherein the indication instructs one or more UEs in the radio coverage area to retrieve said information from the server as a basis for deciding whether a UE user should be notified about the event or not. These limitations without showing steps or functions recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of receiving, storing and sending, etc. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea = YES).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, reply on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application; improving the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea = YES).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. In the current scenario there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites similar features as claim 1, and therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Further, dependent claims 2-5 and 14-15 do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claim.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner analyzed claims 7-11 and 19-20 and determined that these claims are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, that provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, in which case the claims are not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and is eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 100788606 B1 and Kim hereinafter), in view of Boberg et al. (US 20110004942 A1 and Boberg hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a method performed by at least one network node for enabling notifications to User Equipment, UE, users (Page 5 Paragraphs 05-06; the sensor information management server [interpreted as at least one network node], when detecting a fire or intrusion detection, automatic transmitting SMS messages to mobile phones of predetermined fire department, residents, and other related users, and further display detected information and location of sensor node on a map in cooperation with the LBS [location based service] server. Figure 5 and Page 13 Paragraph 05 and 08; the sensor information management server 100 detects sensor ID information, fire detection and intrusion detection and location of sensor nodes from a plurality of sensors installed at respective places, and send SMS [short messaging service] message notifying the occurrence of the accident to telephone numbers of mobile phones of residents of the region and neighboring regions), wherein the method comprises:
detecting that an event associated with a non-radio degradation (Page 5 Paragraph 06; the sensor information management server receives the sensor ID information, the detected information, and the location information of the sensor node from a plurality of sensor nodes connected to a sensor network, and detects whether a fire is detected or an intrusion detection in an area where each sensor node is located. Examiner asserts that the detection of fire or an intrusion detection is an event associated with a non-radio degradation) has occurred in a radio coverage area served by the network node (Page 8 Paragraphs 01 and 02; the sensor network for implementing the disclosure is a ZigBee including a plurality of fire detection sensor and intrusion detection sensors installed in a u-City building, such as existing residential complex, apartment, mall. The intrusion detection and fire detection system using the ubiquitous sensor network includes a sensor information management server 100, a sensor information database 109, a sensor information management client 120, and an LBS server 300. Examiner asserts the u-City buildings with sensors installed may be interpreted as a coverage area served by the network node such as sensor information management server 100 and/or sensor information management client 120. Further in Figure 5 and Page 13 Paragraph 05 and 08; the sensor information management server 100 detects sensor ID information, fire detection and intrusion detection and location of sensor nodes from a plurality of sensors installed at respective places, and send SMS [short messaging service] message notifying the occurrence of the accident to telephone numbers of mobile phones of residents of the region and neighboring regions. Examiner asserts that the area [such as in and around the u-City] where SMS message is transmitted to notify the user of the accident may be interpreted as radio coverage area of the network node [such as the sensor information management server 100]), wherein the UE users potentially want to avoid said event (Figure 5 and Page 13 Paragraph 05 and 08; the sensor information management server 100 detects sensor ID information, fire detection and intrusion detection and location of sensor nodes from a plurality of sensors installed at respective places, and send SMS message notifying the occurrence of the accident to telephone numbers of mobile phones of residents of the region and neighboring regions. Even though Kim does not explicitly disclose that the UE users potentially want to avoid said event, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that UE users would want to avoid accidents such as fire or intrusion, since it would not be safe for UE user to be around or near these accidents);
storing information about the detected event in a server (Page 5 Paragraph 06; a sensor information DB [database] for storing the detected information according to sensor ID information from the plurality of sensor nodes), wherein the information comprises at least a location of the event (Page 5 Paragraph 06; a sensor information DB [database] for storing the detected information according to sensor ID information from the plurality of sensor nodes. Page 8 Paragraphs 06-07; sensor nodes 10a, 10b have unique ID information including coordinate information of the sensor node at the installed place. Examiner asserts that storing the detected information according to sensor ID information may be interpreted as storing the detected information and the location information that is included in the sensor ID information. Page 5 Paragraph 08; sensor information management server includes an SMS transmitter for transmitting the SMS message including the location information of the sensor node where the accident occurred); and
transmitting an indication of the event (Page 5 Paragraphs 05 and 08, and Page 6 Paragraph 04; the sensor information management server sends an SMS message [Examiner interprets the SMS message as an indication of the event] including the location of the sensor node where the accident occurred. Figure 5 and Page 13 Paragraph 08; the SMS message notifying the occurrence of the accident is transmitted to the telephone numbers of telephone or mobile communication terminal of the residents of the region and neighboring regions), and wherein the information as a basis for deciding whether a UE user should be notified about the event or not [Examiner interprets that when an SMS message/information is transmitted to a UE, it is a basis for the UE to decide to notify the user of the event based on the received SMS message; and when no information/SMS is received, the UE does not inform a UE user regarding the event] (Page 5 Paragraphs 05 and 08, and Page 6 Paragraph 04; the sensor information management server sends an SMS message including the location of the sensor node where the accident occurred. Figure 5 and Page 13 Paragraph 08; the SMS message notifying the occurrence of the accident is transmitted to the telephone numbers of telephone or mobile communication terminal of the residents of the region and neighboring regions. Page 2 Paragraph 01; intrusion detection and fire detection using a ubiquitous sensor network to notify the residents by displaying an alarm, generating an alarm, and notifying an SMS message).
Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication indicates that said information is available in the server, and wherein the indication instructs one or more UEs in the radio coverage area to retrieve said information from the server. In an analogous art, Boberg teaches wherein the indication indicates that said information is available in the server (Paragraphs 0006 and 0013; presence server checks the authorization rules and forwards the notification to the authorized users, the notification indicating that the in-direct content is available at content server [interpreted as the server] and is available for retrieval. The indication of the location of the in-directed content may be a URL), and wherein the indication instructs one or more UEs in the radio coverage area (Figure 1; User Equipment in the radio coverage area serviced by access networks and network nodes) to retrieve said information from the server (Paragraphs 0006 and 0013; presence server checks the authorization rules and forwards the notification to the authorized users, the notification indicating that the in-direct content is available at content server and is available for retrieval. The indication of the location of the in-directed content may be a URL). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim and Boberg because this approach is useful when the data to be retrieved may be quite large (e.g., when the information includes multimedia data such as icons, media files, etc.) (Boberg, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claims 2 and 14, the combination of Kim and Boberg teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 13, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein the indication is transmitted as a broadcast, a multicast or a unicast (Page 5 Paragraphs 05 and 08, and Page 6 Paragraph 04; the sensor information management server sends an SMS [short messaging service] message including the location of the sensor node where the accident occurred. Figure 5 and Page 13 Paragraph 05 and 08; the sensor information management server 100 detects sensor ID information, fire detection and intrusion detection and location of sensor nodes from a plurality of sensors installed at respective places, and send SMS message notifying the occurrence of the accident to telephone numbers of mobile phones of residents of the region and neighboring regions. Examiner asserts an SMS message may be considered a unicast since the message is transmitted from a single source [the sensor information management server] to a specific destination [telephone numbers of mobile phones of residents]).
Regarding claims 3 and 15, the combination of Kim and Boberg teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 13, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein the detecting is based on measurements and observations made by UEs and/or sensors in the radio coverage area (Page 5 Paragraph 06 and Page 6 Paragraph 01; the sensor information management server receives the sensor ID information, the detected information and the location information of the sensor node of a plurality of sensor nodes connected to a sensor network, and detects whether a fire is detected or an intrusion detection in an area where each sensor node is located. The sensor information management server may further include a fire detection processor configured to record and store location information, fire occurrence situation information, and action information of a sensor node where a fire has occurred when a fire is detected at a specific sensor node from the detected information. Page 12 Paragraph 02; the detected information includes at least one of fire detection information, intrusion detection information, temperature sensing information, and humidity sensing information according to the installed sensor type. Figure 5 and Page 13 Paragraph 05; the sensor management server 100 detects sensor ID information, fire detection and intrusion detection and location of sensor nodes from a plurality of Zigbee sensors installed at respective places including a fire sensor and a method sensor of a sensor network).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim and Boberg teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein the location of the event is a position in a geographic map (Page 5 and Paragraph 06; the sensor information management server collects the sensor ID information, the sensed information, and location information of the sensor node, and display the location information of each sensor node and the detected information of each region on a map in cooperation with the LBS [location based service] server).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim and Boberg teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Kim teaches wherein the stored information further comprises characteristics of the event such as type (Page 5 Paragraph 06; the sensor information management server receives the sensor ID information and detected information, and detects whether a fire is detected or an intrusion detection in an area where each sensor node is located. Examiner asserts the fire or intrusion detected may be interpreted as the type of the event. Page 6 Paragraph 01; the sensor information management server may further include a fire detection processor configured to record and store location information, fire occurrence information, and action information of a sensor node where a fire has occurred when a fire is detected at a specific sensor node from the detected information) and magnitude of the event (Page 6 Paragraph 01; the sensor information management server may further include a fire detection processor configured to record and store location information, fire occurrence information, and action information of a sensor node where a fire has occurred when a fire is detected at a specific sensor node from the detected information. Page 6 Paragraph 03; intrusion and fire detection system further include a sensor information management client for outputting the location information on the screen, and displays the location information and accident situation information on the map of the sensor node where the accident occurred during intrusion detection and fire detection. Examiner asserts that the action information and accident situation information may be including magnitude of the accident. Page 9 Paragraph 02; the fire detection sensor may generate an alarm sound when the sensor detects home temperature above a predetermined threshold (for example 100 degrees), and sensor ID information, fire detection information, and a location information of the sensor node is transmitted to the sensor information management server. Examiner asserts the temperature above predetermined temperature threshold may also be interpreted as a magnitude of the event).
Claims 7-9, 11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 111031526 A and Li hereinafter), in view of Boberg.
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches a method performed by a User Equipment, UE, for enabling notifications to UE users (Figure 3 and Page 7 Paragraph 05; processing method of a CMAS [commercial mobile alarm system] message. Page 9 Paragraphs 10-11; sending CMAS message to the termina login instant communication account to avoid user not timely check the CMAS message on the terminal device), wherein the method comprises:
receiving an indication of an event (Figure 3 and Page 7 Paragraphs 06-07; [the UE] receives the CMAS message, CMAS message carrying event geographic location and event type. Page 2 Paragraph 05; receiving the CMAS message, wherein the CMAS message carrying geographic position and event type. Figure 2 and Page 6 Paragraphs 09-10; [the UE] receives the CMAS message, the CMAS message for describing the content of the emergency event occurs, the CMAS message carrying event geographic location, event time, event geographic location. The event type represents the type of emergency event, an event type includes, but are not limited to, earthquake, typhoon, war, and the like), associated with a non-radio degradation (Figure 2 and Page 6 Paragraphs 09-10; [the UE] receives the CMAS message, the CMAS message for describing the content of the emergency event occurs, the CMAS message carrying event geographic location, event time, event geographic location. The event type represents the type of emergency event, an event type includes, but are not limited to, earthquake, typhoon, war, and the like. Examiner asserts that these types of events are associated with a non-radio degradation), that the UE users potentially want to avoid (Figure 2 and Page 6 Paragraphs 09-10; [the UE] receives the CMAS message, the CMAS message for describing the content of the emergency event occurs, the CMAS message carrying event geographic location, event time, event geographic location. The event type represents the type of emergency event, an event type includes, but are not limited to, earthquake, typhoon, war, and the like. Even though Li does not explicitly disclose that the UE users potentially want to avoid said event, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that UE users would want to avoid emergency events such as earthquake and typhoon, since it would not be safe for UE user to be around or near these emergency events);
wherein the information comprises at least a location of the event (Figure 2 and Page 6 Paragraphs 09-10; [the UE] receives the CMAS message, the CMAS message for describing the content of the emergency event occurs, the CMAS message carrying event geographic location. Figure 3 and Page 7 Paragraphs 06-07; CMAS message carrying event geographic location and event type, event geographical position represents a position, wherein the emergency event occurs, event geographic location using the influence range or latitude and longitude coordinates, such as influence range of the earthquake is north latitude 30 degree east longitude 113 degrees as centre, the radius is the area of the 30KM, and for example, occurrence of fire is north latitude 40 degree east longitude 150 degrees);
obtaining a position of the UE (Page 5 Paragraph 01; terminal device receiving the CMAS message, determines event geographic location and the current geographical [of the terminal device] is matched. Figure 5 and Page 6 Paragraph 02; terminal device include a mobile station, a mobile telephone [thus a UE], portable device, mobile station, and so on. Figure 3 and Page 7 Paragraph 06-07 and Page 8 Paragraphs 04-05; mobile device receiving the CMAS message from serving base station where the mobile phone reside, the mobile phone determines current geographical position represents a position of the mobile phone is currently located); and
notifying the user of the UE about the event if the obtained UE position is within a pre-determined distance from the location of the event (Figure 3 and Page 8 Paragraphs 06 and 08; terminal device [UE] is configured with a distance threshold, the distance threshold value and event type, such as typhoon corresponding to the distance threshold value is 50 kilometers, distance threshold corresponding to the fire is 10 kilometers. The terminal device [UE] compares the calculated distance is less than or equal to the distance threshold, determining event geographic location and the current geographical position [of the UE] is matched. Page 9 Paragraphs 10-12; when the terminal equipment determines event geographic location and the current geographical position is matched, the terminal device send CMAS message to login terminal of instant communication account to avoid user not timely check the CMAS message on the terminal device), wherein the indication of said information as a basis for deciding whether the UE user should be notified about the event or not (Figure 3 and Page 7 Paragraphs 06-07; [the UE] receives the CMAS message, CMAS message carrying event geographic location and event type. Page 2 Paragraph 05; receiving the CMAS message, wherein the CMAS message carrying geographic position and event type. Figure 3 and Page 8 Paragraph 08; terminal device [UE] is configured with a distance threshold, the distance threshold value and event type, such as typhoon corresponding to the distance threshold value is 50 kilometers, distance threshold corresponding to the fire is 10 kilometers. The terminal device [UE] compares the calculated distance is less than or equal to the distance threshold, determining event geographic location and the current geographical position [of the UE] is matched. Page 9 Paragraphs 10-12; when the terminal equipment determines event geographic location and the current geographical position is matched, the terminal device send CMAS message to login terminal of instant communication account to avoid user not timely check the CMAS message on the terminal device).
Li does not explicitly teach wherein the indication indicates that information about the event is available in a server; retrieving the information about the event from the server; and wherein the UE is instructed by the indication to retrieve said information from the server. In an analogous art, Boberg teaches wherein the indication indicates that information about the event is available in a server (Paragraphs 0006 and 0013; presence server checks the authorization rules and forwards the notification to the authorized users, the notification indicating that the in-direct content is available at content server [interpreted as the server] and is available for retrieval. The indication of the location of the in-directed content may be a URL); retrieving the information about the event from the server (Paragraphs 0006 and 0013; presence server checks the authorization rules and forwards the notification to the authorized users, the notification indicating that the in-direct content is available at content server and is available for retrieval. The indication of the location of the in-directed content may be a URL); and wherein the UE is instructed by the indication to retrieve said information from the server (Paragraphs 0006 and 0013; presence server checks the authorization rules and forwards the notification to the authorized users, the notification indicating that the in-direct content is available at content server [interpreted as the server] and is available for retrieval. The indication of the location of the in-directed content may be a URL). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li and Boberg because this approach is useful when the data to be retrieved may be quite large (e.g., when the information includes multimedia data such as icons, media files, etc.) (Boberg, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites similar features as claim 7, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the combination of Li and Boberg teaches all of the limitations of claims 7 and 19, as described above. Further, Li teaches further comprising: refraining from notifying the user of the UE of the event if the obtained UE position is beyond the pre-determined distance of the location of the event (Figure 3 and Page 8 Paragraphs 06-08; terminal device [UE] is configured with a distance threshold, the distance threshold value and event type, such as typhoon corresponding to the distance threshold value is 50 kilometers, distance threshold corresponding to the fire is 10 kilometers. Figure 3 and Page 8 Paragraph 09 - Page 9 Paragraph 03; when is it determined that the event geographic location and current geographic location [of the UE] is not matched [Examiner asserts that when the two locations do not match it may be interpreted as the distance between two locations is greater than preconfigured distance threshold], i.e., emergency event to the position of the terminal device currently has little effect, the terminal device is shielded of the reminding of the CMAS message, the terminal will not send vibration prompt and/or voice prompt reminder).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Li and Boberg teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as described above. Further, Li teaches wherein the indication is received as a broadcast, a multicast or a unicast from a network node serving a radio coverage area in which the event has occurred (Figure 3 and Page 7 Paragraph 07; mobile phone receiving the CMAS message from the serving base station [interpreted as a network node serving a radio coverage area in which event (CMAS message regarding the event) has occurred] where the mobile phone resides, the CMAS message may be transmitted through a broadcast channel).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Li and Boberg teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as described above. Further, Li teaches wherein the information further comprises characteristics of the event such as type (Figure 2 and Page 6 Paragraphs 11 – Page 7 Paragraph 01; CMAS message may include event type identifier to indicate an emergency event, the terminal device can identify the event type according to the identification) and magnitude of the event (Page 2 Paragraph 18 [last paragraph], Figure 2 and Page 6 Paragraph 10; the event geographic location using the affected area to represent. Page 7 Paragraph 07; CMAS message carrying event geographic location and event type, event geographical position represents a position, wherein the emergency event occurs, event geographic location using the influence range or latitude and longitude coordinates, such as influence range of the earthquake is north latitude 30 degree east longitude 113 degrees as centre, the radius is the area of the 30KM. Examiner asserts the affected area may be used to indicate magnitude of the event, for example a larger affected area may equate to more severe event).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Boberg, as applied in the claim 7 above, further in view of Ewing et al. (US 6611697 B1), hereinafter Ewing.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Li and Boberg teaches all of the limitations of claim 7, as described above.
The combination of Li and Boberg does not explicitly teach wherein the location of the event is a position in a geographic map. In an analogous art, Kim teaches wherein the location of the event is a position in a geographic map (Page 5 and Paragraph 06; the sensor information management server collects the sensor ID information, the sensed information, and location information of the sensor node, and display the location information of each sensor node and the detected information of each region on a map in cooperation with the LBS [location based service] server. Page 6 Paragraph 03; intrusion and fire detection system further include a sensor information management client for outputting the location information on the screen, and displays the location information and accident situation information on the map of the sensor node where the accident occurred during intrusion detection and fire detection). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li, Boberg and Kim because it would provide alarm to residents that are located at or near an accident site and to provide visual location to the residents regarding accident site (Kim, Abstract and Page 1 last paragraph – Page 2 Paragraph 01).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jing Gao/
Examiner, Art Unit 2647 jing.gao@uspto.gov