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, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 09/23/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 102(a)(2) and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection set forth below. The examiner is reopening prosecution because the applicant has not amended the claims and examiner previous rejection has been withdrawn. This action is non-final.
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 9 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 9 recites the limitation “wherein the security request is received from a controller,” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear who is receiving the security request. Take for instance claim 8, “receiving a security request from the first user device” reads as a first user device is sending a security request, and then claim 9 further limits by adding a “wherein” and stating the security request is sent by a controller, but it’s unclear who is receiving the signal because the claim is written as “received from…” but no “to”. Examiner read the applicant specification paragraph 55 and it seems as security devices to receive security request from controller. Examiner is currently is reading claim 9 as the user equipment is sending a security request and the controller is receiving and routing the request to other user devices.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1-2, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, ADIBI discloses A method for mesh-based communication comprising:
determining, by the first user device, if a direct connection to a primary network is available (paragraph [0078], Fig.4:412, "If an emergency situation is found to exist at block 412, the process proceeds to block 420 in which a check is made to determine whether the mobile device is in cell-tower range." (i.e., The UE attempts to check if it has direct connection to a cell-tower.));
if the direct connection is available, sending a message from the first user device to the primary network (paragraph [0078], Fig.4:422, "If yes the process proceeds to block 422 in which a message or report is sent to the network." (i.e., the method will procced to 422 since connection is available.));
and if the direct connection is not available (paragraph [0081], Fig.4, "If the check at block 420 determines that the mobile device is not in cell-tower coverage the process proceeds to block 450." (i.e., no direct connection to cell-tower and therefor goes to 450.)),
determining which connected user devices of the plurality of users in the social matrix is connected, either directly (Fig.2) or through others of the plurality of users (Fig.2), to the primary network (paragraph [0081], Fig.4:450, "At block 450 a check is made to determine whether the mobile device has contact with any other device. If no, the process loops back to block 420 and continues to check whether the device is in cell-tower range or in contact with another device." and paragraph [0083], “Once the message has been forwarded the process proceeds to block 454 in which an attempt is made to establish an ad-hoc network.” and paragraph [0031], Fig.2, “If, for example, mobile device 220 moves out of radio frequency range of mobile device 210, thus breaking the link, the tasks of mobile device 220 may be handed off to other incoming mobile devices…continuously looks for potential roaming mobile devices entering the domain,” (i.e., searching through devices that are in contact with cell-tower. “The social matrix” is address by another prior art. Par.81-83 and Fig.4 describes using the mesh to send the emergency signal, par.30-31 is to show the ad-hoc is dynamic. “Either directly” is reading as one device or one hop to the primary network and “through others…” as having multiple hops or multiple users transmit to the message.))
and sending the message from the first user device to one of the connected user devices (paragraph [0086], Fig.4, "Based on FIG. 4 the mobile device in an emergency situation will continue to attempt to forward an emergency message until cell-tower coverage is achieved either by the mobile device directly or through a second mobile device." (i.e., Sending the message through a second mobile device.)).
However, ADIBI does not disclose determining, by a first user device, nearby ones from a plurality of user devices that are operable for connection through one or more communication protocols; identifying each of the nearby ones of the plurality of user devices; determining permissions of the nearby ones to establish a connection level to each; establishing a social matrix of all of the nearby ones of the plurality of user devices.
Patil discloses determining, by a first user device, nearby ones from a plurality of user devices that are operable for connection through one or more communication protocols (paragraph [0058], Fig.1, "The mesh network 110 may be connected to an external network 125, such as the Internet, by one or more of the member devices (e.g., device 115-i in this example) establishing a connection or communication link 120 with the external network 125. Although not shown, the device 115-i may establish its connection with a base station that has access to the external network 125." and paragraph [0126], Fig.4, "In one configuration, the seeker device 105-g and the advertiser device 115-a may communicate so that the services desired by the seeker device 105-g and the existing mesh network 110 (including the advertiser device 115-a) are found, denoted 405 in FIG. 4." (i.e., Examiner points to Fig.1 wherein the user device (UE) 105 is attempting to connect to an establish mesh.));
identifying each of the nearby ones of the plurality of user devices (paragraph [0059], Fig.1, "The device 105 may “seek” to join the existing mesh network 110 to obtain one or more services that are provided by the member devices 115 of the mesh network 110." and paragraph [0128], "In one embodiment, at block 505, the device 105 may identify a member device from a plurality of member devices 115 of an existing mesh network 110." (i.e., The UE searches and identifies a mesh network.));
determining permissions of the nearby ones to establish a connection level to each (paragraph [0061], Fig.1, "As described further below, the wireless communication device 105 may perform a simplified peering process with the identified device, such as member device 115-a. If multiple devices 115 have been identified by the wireless communication device 105, the simplified peering process may be performed with only one of the identified devices 115." and paragraph [0128], Fig.5, "The identified member device may be the member device that helped the device 105 find the desired service(s). At block 510, the device 105 may communicate with the identified member device 115-a to participate in a single authentication procedure…" (i.e., performing authentication to decide if the UE 105 can join the mesh network.));
ADIBI and Patil are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Self-organizing networks, e.g. ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI such as finding a mesh and joining a mesh simplified in order to quickly sent the emergency signal such as reducing the authentication procedure (Patil, paragraph [0004], “The described features generally relate to one or more improved systems, methods, and/or apparatuses for communications via a mesh network. In general, the approach is to simplify peering for joining a mesh network. The approach may involve a single authentication procedure for a wireless communication device to join an existing mesh network.”).
Regarding Claim 2, ADIBI in view of Patil discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
ADIBI further discloses wherein the message includes at least one of last known location (paragraph [0038], “The forwarding of the message, in one embodiment involves appending or adding the last known whereabouts of the mobile device 310 to the message prior to forwarding.” and paragraph [0039], “Thus, the example, if mobile device 320 is capable of receiving GPS signals it may provide more accurate information as to the location of the contact.” (i.e., adding last known location to the emergency message. “At least one” reads as other features are optional and therefor have no patentable weight.)).
Regarding Claim 16, ADIBI in view of Patil discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
Patil further discloses wherein the connected user device is chosen by the first user device based on at least one of on a permission set on the connected user device (paragraph [0128], Fig.5:505, "At block 510, the device 105 may communicate with the identified member device 115-a to participate in a single authentication procedure. If the single authentication procedure is successfully completed, the device 105 may join the existing mesh network, without needing any additional authentication procedures with another member device 115 to join the existing mesh network 110." (i.e., It's based on the permission set of the connected user device because the UE 105 attempts the join the mesh network, it needs to pass authentication. Examiner also points to par.59-60 wherein describes a seeker device thus the device looks for a mesh system based a permission of the connected user device. “At least one” reads as other features are optional and therefor have no patentable weight.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1) in further view of Clark (US-10943463-B1).
Regarding Claim 3, ADIBI in view of Patil discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil do not disclose further comprising dictating a configuration or a behavior of one or more of the plurality of user devices with a master device.
Clark discloses further comprising dictating a configuration or a behavior of one (Col. 22, Lines 49-58, Fig.4, "In another example, the client device 120A and the client device 120B can use the peer-to-peer wireless communication link 404 to coordinate master-slave roles of the client devices. For example, in some cases, client device 120A can be programmed to function as a master or primary device for collecting certain data, generating and/or sending assistance requests and/or associated communications, performing certain operations, etc.; and client device 120B can be programmed to function as a slave or secondary device for any operations or tasks." (i.e., "Master device" is reading as a UE that control the other UE and in Clark client device 120A controlling client device 120B.)).
ADIBI in view of Patil and Clark are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for handling of emergency or hazardous situations, e.g. earthquake and tsunami warning systems [ETWS]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to implement a master and slave device to enable distribute resources, data collection, signaling notification operations and so on in order to save battery life during and emergency (Clark, Col. 08, lines 50-60, “In some implementations, the wireless connection between the client devices 120 can allow the client devices 120 to distribute operations (e.g., localization operations, recognition operations, data collection operations, signaling operations, communication operations, alert or notification operations, map operations, etc.) between the client devices 120 in order to provide redundancy, distribute power consumption, limit battery use at each device, distribute resource consumption (e.g., compute resource consumption, memory, storage, network or interface bandwidth, etc.), and so forth.”).
Regarding Claim 4, ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Clark discloses all the limitations as claim 3.
Clark further discloses wherein the configuration or the behavior includes at least one of notification parameters (Col. 19, Lines 21-32, Fig.3, " In other cases, the client device 120A and the client device 120B can communicate wirelessly with each other to determine that one client device should send an assistance request and/or associated communications over a specific communication channel or interface while the other client device sends (e.g., simultaneously, at a particular time or interval, in a particular order, etc.) the assistance request and/or associated communications over a different communication channel or interface and/or performs other operations (e.g., collecting data, receiving alerts or notifications, performing calculations, tracking the user, etc.)." Clark, Col. 08, lines 50-60, “In some implementations, the wireless connection between the client devices 120 can allow the client devices 120 to distribute operations…alert or notification operations,” (i.e., The pair client device 120A changing behavior 120B such as configuration to receiving notifications.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1) in further view of Choudhury (US-20160094398-A1).
Regarding Claim 5, ADIBI in view of Patil discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil do not disclose further comprising routing and processing requests from the first user device with a controller
Choudhury further comprising routing and processing requests from the first user device with a controller (paragraph [0040], Fig.1:35, "In the example of FIG. 1, network system 10 includes a centralized controller 35 that provides complete control-plane functionality for mesh network 20. As described herein, controller 35 may facilitate end-to-end data forwarding from a core-facing edge of the mesh network 20 through wireless access points 12 and WDs 14 located proximate to computing devices 18. The controller 35 provides a central point for configuring the wireless access points 12 and WDs 14 of the mesh network to provide transport services to transport traffic as needed between WDs 14." (i.e., Examiner is reading the claim as a controller is receiving a security request from the UE, but the language is unclear since the controller and the first device are both receiving. Since Harris UE is broadcasting the security request, Choudhury control can provide transport service to transport traffic as needed between wireless devices (WD).)).
ADIBI in view of Patil and Choudhury are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for Self-organizing networks, e.g. ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to implement a controller because the controller enables to monitor the network without having to query multiple nodes in the network and also enables the mesh network to scale as the number of computing devices increases (Choudhury, paragraph [0071], “…Controller 35 provides a network operator with a single touch-point into the network to monitor and troubleshoot without having to query multiple nodes in the network. Moreover, the techniques may be utilized within aggregation networks to unify disparate edge networks into a single service delivery platform for business, residential and mobile applications. Moreover, the techniques can provide a mesh network architected to easily scale as the number of computing devices 18 increases.”).
Claim(s) 6, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1) in further view of Barash (US-20190159009-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, ADIBI in view of Patil discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil do not disclose further comprising delivering location information from the first user device to a first security device via a dispatcher.
Barash discloses further comprising delivering location information from the first user device to a first security device via a dispatcher (paragraph [0041], Fig.1, "In the figure, the victim 102, indicated by an exclamation point (the location of the victim and the location from which a call reporting the event originated are presumed to be the same in the absence of addition information), has suffered a sudden cardiac arrest while running on a trail near a pond in the park. Upon feeling chest pains, the victim 102 may have called 911 in order to report an emergency, or may have activated an application installed on his or her smart phone, where the application is programmed to initiate a call to emergency services and to provide data that indicates the victim's 102 geographic location." and paragraph [0049], Fig.1, "Upon the user 104A making such an indication, the dispatcher and/or a related automated system may download to the smart phone 110 information to allow the responder 104A to locate the victim 102," (i.e., Examiner is reading "a first security device" is the responder that is responding to the user emergency message and the dispatcher is providing the user location. Par.41 is victim indicating an emergency situation, par.49 is a responder who indicating that they are willing to provide help, and the dispatcher then provides the location to the responder.)).
ADIBI in view of Patil and Barash are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for Services for handling of emergency or hazardous situations, e.g. earthquake and tsunami warning systems [ETWS]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to have a dispatcher to provide the location of the user because Barash describes providing a location to a person who can act as a first responder and help the victim thus reducing the response time for an emergency (Barash, paragraph [0011], “For example, by identifying lay responders in the vicinity of a victim or victims, the systems and techniques can reduce response time for an emergency, which can be critically important for cardiac arrest victims. Also, responders may be shown the location of known publicly-accessible equipment, so that they can get it on the way to tending to the victim.”).
Regarding Claim 10, ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Barash discloses all the limitations as claim 6.
ADIBI discloses via the mesh-based communication between the plurality of user devices (paragraph [0085], Fig.4:430, "If an ad-hoc network is established the process may proceed to block 430 to allow communication between the mobile device and another entity such as a first responder." (i.e., The communication can be established between responder and user device via mesh as states "another entity".)).
Barash further discloses further comprising connecting the first security device directly to the first user device (paragraph [0051], "A direct voice channel may also be opened between one or more of the responders and the victim 102, e.g., so that they can receive directions form the victim (or from the person who is with the victim 102), can obtain information about the victim's 102 condition (so that, for example, they can determine that they need to obtain additional responders…" (i.e., A communication can be performed between the user and responder.)).
The proposed combination as well as the motivations for combining the references presented in the rejection of the parent claim apply to this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1) in further view of Harris (US-20210112068-A1).
Regarding Claim 8, ADIBI in view of Patil discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil do not disclose further comprising receiving a security request from the first user device.
Harris discloses further comprising receiving a security request from the first user device (paragraph [0077], "The first user device 101 may then broadcast a security request message. The security request message may be a broadcast message, as described above. The security request message may include a request for the user devices of the plurality of user devices to respond with additional data security values." (i.e., "receiving a security request from the first user device" is reading as a first user device sending a security request since the claim says "from".)).
ADIBI in view of Patil and Harris are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for Self-organizing networks, e.g. ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to broadcast a security message in order to verify the user identity such as in a mesh system in order to send private information such as location (Harris, paragraph [0004], “Additionally, when offline, the mobile phone may perform interactions with nearby local devices, such as other mobile phones. The mobile phone, since it is offline, cannot rely on a central server to determine if the interaction is fraudulent.” and paragraph [0007], “…and allowing or not allowing the user device to perform an interaction based at least upon the updated data security value.”).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1) in further view of Mehta (US-20170251347-A1).
Regarding Claim 14, ADIBI in view of Patil discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil do not disclose further comprising storing information related to the plurality of user devices, the social matrix, device configurations and relationships between one or more master devices and each of the plurality of user devices in a user database.
Mehta discloses further comprising storing information related to the plurality of user devices, the social matrix, device configurations and relationships between one or more master devices and each of the plurality of user devices in a user database (paragraph [0154], Fig.3, "when both devices (306, 307) are member devices belonging to a group of devices, the EMS 330 confirms the identity of the user 300 after receiving the request for assistance and verifies the association of the user 300 with the beneficiary user 305, including authorization to share location and other information (for example, by checking a database 357 at the EMS 330, EDC 355, EDC 357, or the devices 305, 307)." and paragraph [0162], "In further embodiments, the EMS establishes a covert data communication session with the beneficiary member device of the group of devices on whose behalf the request for assistance was received (act 522)," (i.e., a database such as Fig.3:357 that has user information and the beneficiary user that could also be the master device as described in par.162 and checks the relationship in par.154 "verifies the association…".)).
ADIBI in view of Patil and Mehta are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for Services for handling of emergency or hazardous situations, e.g. earthquake and tsunami warning systems [ETWS]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to implement a database in order to verify the users that are calling for an emergency and that information can be helpful in determining fraudulent calls thus saving resources for actual victims or people in need and increases in security by verifying the party identities there were affected by the emergency.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1) in view of Barash (US-20190159009-A1) in further view of MacGabann (US-20190313230-A1).
Regarding Claim 7, ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Barash discloses all the limitations as claim 6.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Barash do not disclose wherein the dispatcher provides and relays real-time location information to the first security device.
MacGabann discloses wherein the dispatcher provides and relays real-time location information to the first security device (paragraph [0062], Fig.3D, "the responder application 135 running on the computing device of the ambulance." and paragraph [0124], "The responder application 135 can receive perpetual (e.g., real-time) location updates and/or status updates relating to the victim, and can also provide perpetual location and/or status updates relating to the emergency responder at block 317." (i.e., the responder receiving real-time update of the user location.)).
ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Barash and MacGabann are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for Services for handling of emergency or hazardous situations, e.g. earthquake and tsunami warning systems [ETWS]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI in order to implement the method of MacGabann real-time location information because it enables the first responders to receive accurate location such as flooding or earthquake and MacGabnn describes the location be kept tracked even during internet or landline failure but adapting to other forms of service (MacGabann, paragraph [0030], “Further, the rescue application can provide for automated emergency dispatch and location tracking even during internet or landline failure by adaptively determining whether to send rescue request packets over Internet, Short Message Service (“SMS”), or other communications medium.”).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1) in view of Harris (US-20210112068-A1) in further view of Choudhury (US-20160094398-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Harris discloses all the limitations as claim 8.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Harris do not disclose wherein the security request is received from a controller, the controller operable to route and process requests from the first user device
Choudhury discloses wherein the security request is received from a controller, the controller operable to route and process requests from the first user device (paragraph [0040], Fig.1:35, "In the example of FIG. 1, network system 10 includes a centralized controller 35 that provides complete control-plane functionality for mesh network 20. As described herein, controller 35 may facilitate end-to-end data forwarding from a core-facing edge of the mesh network 20 through wireless access points 12 and WDs 14 located proximate to computing devices 18. The controller 35 provides a central point for configuring the wireless access points 12 and WDs 14 of the mesh network to provide transport services to transport traffic as needed between WDs 14." (i.e., Examiner is reading the claim as a controller is receiving a security request from the UE, but the language is unclear since the controller and the first device are both sending as they both state "received/receiving from…". Since Harris UE is broadcasting the security request, Choudhury control can provide transport service to transport traffic as needed between wireless devices (WD).)).
ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Harris and Choudhury are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for Self-organizing networks, e.g. ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to implement a controller because the controller enables to manage traffic in the network in order to provide the best services for the devices communicating in the network and also enables the mesh network to scale as the number of computing devices increases (Choudhury, paragraph [0071], “…Controller 35 provides a network operator with a single touch-point into the network to monitor and troubleshoot without having to query multiple nodes in the network. Moreover, the techniques may be utilized within aggregation networks to unify disparate edge networks into a single service delivery platform for business, residential and mobile applications. Moreover, the techniques can provide a mesh network architected to easily scale as the number of computing devices 18 increases.”).
Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1) in view of Ryan (US-9826358-B2) in further view of Clark (US-10943463-B1).
Regarding Claim 11, ADIBI in view of Patil discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil do not disclose further comprising managing connectivity between connected user devices, between one or more security devices, and between one or more master devices with a device interface.
Ryan discloses further comprising managing connectivity between connected user devices, between one or more security devices (Col. 12, Lines 06-15, Fig.1, "The emergency server 520 communicates with candidate responders within the first geofenced area 504 and possibly within the second geofence 506 at S410. The communication may be an event notification message that includes details of the emergency, and prompts a response regarding whether the candidate responder is available. In an embodiment, when responses are received from a predetermined number of candidate responders, then the emergency server signals to other candidate responders that their services are not currently required." and Col.12, lines 65-67, "Location data for the victim or caller may be provided to one or more responder as well." (i.e., "Security devices" is reading as devices that is for first responders that are able to communicate with the emergency server or dispatcher and that are able to obtain user locations. The managing connectivity is mapped with Col. 04, Lines 55-62.)),
with a device interface (Col. 04, Lines 40-42, Fig.2, "FIG. 2 illustrates a block diagram of a network device 200 that may be represent UE 108, network controller devices 110, 112 and 114, an emergency mediation server 120, etc." and Col. 04, Lines 55-62, " The network device 200 may also include a user interface 206 that allows a user to interact with the network device's software and hardware resources…In addition, the network device 200 may include a network interface 206 for communicating with external devices, and a system bus 210 that facilitates data communications between the hardware resources of the network device." (i.e., network interface included in UE, network controller and server to manage communications.)).
ADIBI in view of Patil and Ryan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for Services for handling of emergency or hazardous situations, e.g. earthquake and tsunami warning systems [ETWS]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to implement security devices in order increase communication between dispatcher and first responders as Ryan enables the responders to be re-assigned to better match available skills to emergency needs (Ryan, Col.12, lines 27-29, “Responders may be re-assigned to better match available skills to emergency needs based on the nature and extent of the emergency.”). Also further adding network device (Ryan, Fig.1:120) in order to manage connectivity between all users in order to increase efficiency in responding in an emergency situation by managing connectivity resources.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Ryan do not disclose one or more master devices.
Clark discloses and between one or more master devices (Col. 22, Lines 49-58, Fig.4, "In another example, the client device 120A and the client device 120B can use the peer-to-peer wireless communication link 404 to coordinate master-slave roles of the client devices. For example, in some cases, client device 120A can be programmed to function as a master or primary device for collecting certain data, generating and/or sending assistance requests and/or associated communications, performing certain operations, etc.; and client device 120B can be programmed to function as a slave or secondary device for any operations or tasks." (i.e., "Master device" is reading as a UE that control the other UE.)).
ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Ryan and Clark are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for handling of emergency or hazardous situations, e.g. earthquake and tsunami warning systems [ETWS]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to implement a master and slave device to enable distribute resources, data collection, signaling notification operations and so on in order to save battery life during and emergency (Clark, Col. 08, lines 50-60, “In some implementations, the wireless connection between the client devices 120 can allow the client devices 120 to distribute operations (e.g., localization operations, recognition operations, data collection operations, signaling operations, communication operations, alert or notification operations, map operations, etc.) between the client devices 120 in order to provide redundancy, distribute power consumption, limit battery use at each device, distribute resource consumption (e.g., compute resource consumption, memory, storage, network or interface bandwidth, etc.), and so forth.”).
Regarding Claim 13, ADIBI in view of Patil discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil do not disclose further comprising storing configuration information for the plurality of user devices, one or more security devices and one or more master devices in a configuration database.
Ryan discloses further comprising storing configuration information for the plurality of user devices, one or more security devices (Col. 12, Lines 06-15, Fig.1, "The emergency server 520 communicates with candidate responders within the first geofenced area 504 and possibly within the second geofence 506 at S410. The communication may be an event notification message that includes details of the emergency, and prompts a response regarding whether the candidate responder is available. In an embodiment, when responses are received from a predetermined number of candidate responders, then the emergency server signals to other candidate responders that their services are not currently required." and Col.12, lines 65-67, "Location data for the victim or caller may be provided to one or more responder as well." (i.e., "Security devices" is reading as devices that is for first responders that are able to communicate with the emergency server or dispatcher and that are able to obtain user locations.))
in a configuration database (Col. 04, Lines 09-13, Fig.1, "…The emergency mediation server 120 may include a database that stores preferences and settings for a plurality of users, including emergency contact groups, current locations of users, protocols for handling particular emergency situations, etc." (i.e., a database to store setting and preferences of users.)).
ADIBI in view of Patil and Ryan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for Services for handling of emergency or hazardous situations, e.g. earthquake and tsunami warning systems [ETWS]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to implement security devices in order increase communication between dispatcher and first responders as Ryan enables the responders to be re-assigned to better match available skills to emergency needs (Ryan, Col.12, lines 27-29, “Responders may be re-assigned to better match available skills to emergency needs based on the nature and extent of the emergency.”). Also further adding a configuration database as described in Ryan as it would help reduce the time to respond to an emergency by knowing the user’s preference and knowing the device configuration in order to efficiently provide information to help the victim.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1) in view of Jacobs (US-20100279647-A1) in further view of Ryan (US-9826358-B2).
Regarding Claim 15, ADIBI in view of Patil discloses all the limitations as claim 1.
However, ADIBI in view of Patil do not disclose wherein the mesh-based communication system is a mesh-based emergency response system, wherein one or more security devices are provided with the information provided by the first user device.
Jacobs discloses wherein the mesh-based communication system is a mesh-based emergency response system (paragraph [0019], Fig.1, "Thus, devices that lack a connection with the communications network can form a type of mesh network with each other to corroborate characteristics that are indicative of an emergency event and collaborate information related to the occurrence. The mesh network can extend to relay devices that relay the collaborated information either to another relay device, or over the communications network…" (i.e., Jacobs describes creating a mesh-based response due to not having network communication and creating a mesh system to communicate for the emergency event.)).
ADIBI in view of Patil and Jacobs are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for Services for handling of emergency or hazardous situations, e.g. earthquake and tsunami warning systems [ETWS]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to implement the method of Jacobs because Jacobs mesh-based emergency response system can have a user phone sent a distress signal such as checking the sensor of the phone i.e., accelerometer during a car crash and by having a mesh emergency message response the validity of needing help increases (Jacobs, paragraph [0029], “The ability to corroborate an emergency event provides confidence in the validity of an emergency message generated to indicate the emergency. For example, cell phones may be embedded with an accelerometer. However, cell phones are often dropped, and so relying strictly on the single cell phones' internally embedded accelerometer may produce a false positive emergency distress signal. If that phone can verify the event with other devices, such as other nearby cell phones, however, the confidence level of the message can be increased. If the characteristics consistent with an emergency event can be verified with other devices, such as a GPS, a vehicle's GPS, accelerometer, an onboard sensor, a g-force sensor, engine status, water sensors, gyro rate sensors, temperature sensor, or the like, then there is increased confidence that an emergency event has occurred.”).
However, ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Jacobs do not disclose wherein one or more security devices are provided with the information provided by the first user device.
Ryan discloses wherein one or more security devices are provided with the information provided by the first user device (Col. 12, Lines 06-15, Fig.1, "The emergency server 520 communicates with candidate responders within the first geofenced area 504 and possibly within the second geofence 506 at S410. The communication may be an event notification message that includes details of the emergency, and prompts a response regarding whether the candidate responder is available. In an embodiment, when responses are received from a predetermined number of candidate responders, then the emergency server signals to other candidate responders that their services are not currently required." and Col.12, lines 65-67, "Location data for the victim or caller may be provided to one or more responder as well." (i.e., "Security devices" is reading as devices that is for first responders that are able to communicate with the emergency server or dispatcher and that are able to obtain user locations.)).
ADIBI in view of Patil in further view of Jacobs and Ryan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Services for Services for handling of emergency or hazardous situations, e.g. earthquake and tsunami warning systems [ETWS]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI to implement security devices in order increase communication between dispatcher and first responders as Ryan enables the responders to be re-assigned to better match available skills to emergency needs (Ryan, Col.12, lines 27-29, “Responders may be re-assigned to better match available skills to emergency needs based on the nature and extent of the emergency.”).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ADIBI (US-20130017802-A1) in view of Patil (US-20150281952-A1) in view of Ryan (US-9826358-B2) in further view of Choudhury (US-20160094398-A1).
Regarding Claim 17, ADIBI discloses a mesh-based communication system comprising: wherein the first user device is configured to determine if a direct connection to a primary network is available (paragraph [0078], Fig.4:412, "If an emergency situation is found to exist at block 412, the process proceeds to block 420 in which a check is made to determine whether the mobile device is in cell-tower range." (i.e., The UE attempts to check if it has direct connection to a cell-tower.));
if the direct connection is available, a message is sent from the first user device to the primary network (paragraph [0078], Fig.4, "If yes the process proceeds to block 422 in which a message or report is sent to the network." (i.e., the method will procced to 422 since connection is available.)); and
if the direct connection is not available (paragraph [0081], Fig., "If the check at block 420 determines that the mobile device is not in cell-tower coverage the process proceeds to block 450." (i.e., no direct connection to cell-tower and therefor goes to 450.)),
determining which connected user devices of the plurality of user devices of the plurality of users are connected, either directly or through others of the plurality of users, to the primary network (paragraph [0081], Fig.4:450, " At block 450 a check is made to determine whether the mobile device has contact with any other device. If no, the process loops back to block 420 and continues to check whether the device is in cell-tower range or in contact with another device." (i.e., searching through devices that are in contact with cell-tower.))
and sending the message from the first user device to one of the connected user devices (paragraph [0086], Fig.4, "Based on FIG. 4 the mobile device in an emergency situation will continue to attempt to forward an emergency message until cell-tower coverage is achieved either by the mobile device directly or through a second mobile device." (i.e., Sending the message through a second mobile device.)).
However, ADIBI does not explicitly disclose a plurality of user devices; and does not disclose a primary network in communication with at least one of the plurality of user devices; one or more security devices in communication with the primary network; a controller operable to route and process a request from a first one of the plurality of user devices and a request from the one or more security devices.
Patil discloses a plurality of user devices (paragraph [0054], Fig.1, "Referring first to FIG. 1, an arrangement 100 is shown that includes an established mesh network 110. The mesh network 110 may be implemented as a wired or wireless communication network of various fixed and/or mobile devices, that may be referred to as “nodes” 115 of the mesh network 110." (i.e., Fig.1 shows plurality of user devices.));
a primary network in communication with at least one of the plurality of user devices (paragraph [0058], Fig.1:125, "The mesh network 110 may be connected to an external network 125, such as the Internet, by one or more of the member devices (e.g., device 115-i in this example) establishing a connection or communication link 120 with the external network 125." (i.e., Fig.1 shows the mesh connected to a network via communication link 120.)).
Patil and ADIBI are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field Self-organizing networks, e.g. ad-hoc networks. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ADIBI such as finding a mesh and joining a mesh simplified in order to quickly sent the emergency signal such as reducing the authentication procedure (Patil, paragraph [0004], “The described features generally relate to one or more improved systems, methods, and/or apparatuses for communications via a mesh network. In general, the approach is to simplify peering for joining a mesh network. The approach may involve a single authentication procedure for a wireless communication device to join an existing mesh network.”).
However, ADIBI in view of Patil do not disclose one or more security devices in communication with the primary network; a controller operable to route and process a request from a first one of the plurality of user devices and a request from the one or more security devices.
Ryan discloses one or more security devices in communication with the primary network (Col. 12, Lines 06-15, Fig.1, "The emergency server 520 communicates with candidate responders within the first geofenced area 504 and possibly within the second geofence 506 at S410. The communication may be an event notification message that includes details of the emergency, and prompts a response regarding whether the candidate responder is available. In an embodiment, when responses are received from a predetermined number of candidate responders, then the emergency server signals to other candidate responders that their services are not currently