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 and amendments, filed 12/3/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6-7, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laird (US 20050075116) in view of Saigh (US 20130183924).
Regarding claim 1, Laird teaches, a communication terminal (mobile telephone handset: Fig. 2 and paragraph 31) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (Paragraph 31); transmit an emergency message (Paragraph 26); and
disable a user's operation of the communication terminal or a function executed by a user's operation of the communication terminal after the emergency message is transmitted (Paragraph 161-163: he handset 100 can be configured to recognize a "stealth code" that, when entered by a user, causes the handset to send a message to the campus security management server 114 indicating that communication with the user may increase the user's risk of harm. While in stealth mode, the handset 100 repeatedly sends its position information to the campus security management server 114, such as once per second. The campus security management server 114 displays information about the handset 100 on the dispatcher workstation 128, and security personnel are dispatched to the location of the user. Covert communications with the handset can continue, such as to obtain location information about the handset or sensor data), and,
start data communication with a monitoring terminal and transmits data to the monitoring terminal while the operation or the function is disabled (Paragraph 167: Stealth mode may activate additional features, as supported by the handset and configured in the user's profile, such as opening a one-directional voice channel to the campus security office (to audibly monitor the situation) and/or activating an image capture and transfer capability to transmit images from the handset to the campus security office).
Laird does not explicitly teach receive a monitoring command message including the type of data desired to be collected from a monitoring terminal as claimed
Saigh teaches personal safety mobile notification system (Paragraph 3), receive a monitoring command message including the type of data desired to be collected from a monitoring and transmit the collected data (Paragraph 57: emergency responders might have the ability to remotely access the receiver and/or camera of every mobile phone in the area effectively remotely recording the audio and/or video input from one or more phones in order to assess a situation, gain information and encapsulate evidence. Further, the remote access to mobile devices through the server might also include the ability to turn the phone on if it is off, as well as adjust volume and vibration controls, and change any settings on their phone)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Laird with Saigh in order to improve the system by allow the responders to assess the desired situation, gain information and encapsulate evidence.
Regarding claim 2, Laird in view of Saigh teaches wherein when a response message to the emergency message or a monitoring command message for conducting remote monitoring is received from the monitoring terminal, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to disable the operation or the function (Paragraph 161-163).
Regarding claim 3, Laird t in view of Saigh teaches, wherein when a monitoring end message indicating end of monitoring is received from the monitoring terminal, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to the disabled operation or the function having been disabled (Paragraph 84, 87: emergency end and the operation end as well, Paragraph 163, 168).
Regarding claim 5, Laird in view of Saigh teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to disable at least one of all functions executed by a user's operation (Paragraph 161-163).
Regarding claim 6, Laird in view of Saigh teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to transmit and receive data and messages through a server that relays communications with the monitoring terminal (Fig. 1, el. 114).
Regarding claim 7, Laird in view of Saigh teaches, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to transmit, to the server, the emergency message containing priority information indicating priority of processing related to communication with the monitoring terminal (Paragraph 239, 256).
Regarding claim 8, see claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 9, see claim 1 rejection.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laird (US 20050075116) in view of Saigh (US 20130183924)in view of Nam (US 9,860721).
Regarding claim 4, Laird in view of Saigh teaches, the claimed device/method.
Laird does not teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to start a timer after disabling the function and, when the timer expires, enable the disabled operation or the function.
Nam in the same art of endeavor teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to start a timer after disabling the function and, when the timer expires, enable the disabled operation or the function (Claim 3: control the mobile function for period of time during emergency { volume adjusting unit for auto-adjusting a volume of a speaker to a minimum level and auto-adjusting a volume of a microphone to a maximum level, and wherein the mobile phone of the user automatically adjusts, upon a determination of a match, the microphone of the mobile phone to the maximum level to increase an input of the surrounding voice data to the mobile phone, adjusts the speaker of the mobile phone to the minimum level to minimize an output, through the mobile phone of the user, of sound from the call connection, automatically records, upon the determination of the match, the surrounding voice data for a predetermined period of time after the determination of the match, and creates the emergency situation alert signal using the voice data that was matched and the recorded surrounding voice data}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Laird with Nam to improve the system and enhance the user experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA EL-ZOOBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Carolyn Edward can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/MARIA EL-ZOOBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692