DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness can only be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
In response to applicant's argument that the references Bakker (U.S. Pub. No. 20200100202) and Buckley (U.S. Pub. No. 20210058761) fails to show certain features of applicant’s invention (i.e. “receiving, …an emergency test parameter for the UE from a subscriber database of the telecommunication core network”).
Applicant specifically argued and/or stated that “Buckley makes no mention that such a message is used to select an extended emergency number list from multiple alternative emergency number lists”.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments because of the following reasons:
First, Bakker in e.g. fig. 8, pp0068, pp0027, Table 2, and pp0039, discussed the concept wherein emergency REGISTRATION REQUEST including PLMN ID or cell identity is received in the network and wherein if the REGISTRATION ACCEPT message is received via non-3GPP access, the message includes an extended local emergency numbers list: 1) the EENLV indicator in the extended emergency number list IE indicates that the extended emergency number list is valid in this PLMN where the list is received. Bakker further discussed that the local emergency numbers list and the extended local emergency numbers list contain additional local emergency numbers used by the serving network. These lists may be downloaded by the network to the UE at successful registration and subsequent registration updates.
Thus, the at least claimed limitation does not uniquely and/or particularly define the at least limitation “selecting, … from multiple, alternative extended emergency number lists an extended emergency number list” so as to be distinguished from the applied prior art as discussed above. During patent examination, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See also MPEP §2111.
On the other hand, in an analogous field of endeavor, Buckley teaches the concept of receiving the emergency codes e.g. country code from HSS 618, and based on the emergency code, an emergency number list or additional emergency number list is provided (see, fig. 6, Table 8 and 9).
Therefore, contrary to the Applicant’s arguments i.e. showing non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, the Examiner believes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bakker with the teachings of Buckley to achieve the goal of efficiently identifying appropriate and trusted emergency calling numbers in a communication system (Buckley, pp0002).
Therefore, based on the Applicant’s amendments, rejections are maintained with respect to at least the prior art references Bakker and Buckley.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 17, and 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakker (US Publication No. 20200100202) in view of Buckley et al. (US Publication No. 20210058761).
As to claims 1, 10, and 17, Bakker teaches a method, a non-transitory computer storage medium, and a core network node of a telecommunications core network, the core network node comprising: a processor; and a plurality of programming instructions configured to be operated by the processor to perform operations including (fig. 8, AMF, fig. 10): receiving, during a message exchange for a user equipment (UE), an emergency test parameter (PLMN ID or cell identity) for the UE (fig. 8, #1, #3, emergency registration request, and pp0075, pp0078); selecting from multiple, alternative extended emergency number lists an extended emergency number list for the UE based on the emergency test parameter (fig. 8, #22, pp0068, providing REGISTRATION ACCEPT message is received via non-3GPP access, the message includes an extended local emergency numbers list: 1) the EENLV indicator in the extended emergency number list IE indicates that the extended emergency number list is valid in this PLMN where the list is received, pp0027, the local emergency numbers list and the extended local emergency numbers list contain additional local emergency numbers used by the serving network. These lists may be downloaded by the network to the UE at successful registration and subsequent registration updates and Table 2); and providing the extended emergency number list to the UE in an accept message of the message exchange (fig. 8, #22, pp0068, pp0027, network may send a local emergency numbers list or an extended local emergency numbers list or both, in the ATTACH ACCEPT or in the TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT messages by including the emergency number list IE and the extended emergency number list IE). However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the receiving comprises receiving the emergency test parameter from a subscriber database of the telecommunications core network.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Buckley teaches wherein the receiving comprises receiving the emergency test parameter from a subscriber database of the telecommunications core network (fig. 6, Table 8, Table 9, based on emergency codes from HSS 618, receive an authentication message 640 from the AAA server 616 containing the “EmergencyNumberList”, the “Emergency numbers list” may also be known as “Additional emergency numbers list”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bakker with the teachings of Buckley to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably identifying appropriate and trusted emergency calling numbers in a communication system (Buckley, pp0002).
As to claims 3 and 12, Bakker in view of Buckley teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Bakker further teaches wherein the core network node is a mobility management entity (MME) (fig. 8, pp0021, NAS procedures in an EPS include protocols for mobility management and session management used between the UE and Mobility Management Entity (MME) in the EPS), the subscriber database is a home subscriber server (HSS) (fig. 8 and fig. 9), and the accept message is an attach accept message or a tracking area update accept message (fig. 8, #22, pp0068, pp0027, network may send a local emergency numbers list or an extended local emergency numbers list or both, in the ATTACH ACCEPT or in the TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT messages by including the emergency number list IE and the extended emergency number list IE).
As to claim 4, Bakker in view of Buckley teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Bakker further teaches wherein the core network node is an access and mobility management function (AMF) (fig. 8, AMF), the subscriber database is a unified data management (UDM) node (fig. 8 and fig. 9), and the accept message is a registration accept message (fig. 8, #22, pp0068, pp0027, network may send a local emergency numbers list or an extended local emergency numbers list or both, in the ATTACH ACCEPT or in the TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT messages by including the emergency number list IE and the extended emergency number list IE).
As to claims 5, 13, and 19, Bakker in view of Buckley teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Bakker further teaches wherein the emergency test parameter is a zone code or an area identifier (fig. 8, #1, #3, emergency registration request service, and pp0075, pp0078, PLMN ID or cell identity).
As to claims 6 and 14, Bakker in view of Buckley teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Bakker further teaches wherein the providing comprises providing both an emergency number list with statically defined uniform resource names and the extended emergency number list to the UE (fig. 8, pp0022, emergency information provided to a UE during registration may include one or both of an extended local emergency numbers list and a local emergency numbers list, pp0023, Extended emergency number list may be sent in an information element (IE). The purpose of this information element is to encode one or more local emergency number(s) together with a sub-services field containing zero or more sub-services of the associated emergency service URN).
As to claim 7, Bakker in view of Buckley teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Bakker further teaches wherein the providing comprises providing the extended emergency number list in an information element of the accept message (fig. 8, #22, pp0068, pp0027, network may send a local emergency numbers list or an extended local emergency numbers list or both, in the ATTACH ACCEPT or in the TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT messages by including the emergency number list IE and the extended emergency number list IE).
As to claims 9 and 16, Bakker in view of Buckley teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Bakker further teaches the concept of multiple extended emergency number (Table 2). However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the multiple, alternative extended emergency number lists include the extended emergency number list and an alternate extended emergency number list, wherein the alternate extended emergency number list includes a subset of uniform resource names (URNs) in the extended emergency number list or different URNs than the URNs in the extended emergency number list
In an analogous field of endeavor, Buckley teaches the concept wherein the multiple, alternative extended emergency number lists include the extended emergency number list and an alternate extended emergency number list, wherein the alternate extended emergency number list includes a subset of uniform resource names (URNs) in the extended emergency number list or different URNs than the URNs in the extended emergency number list (fig. 6, Table 7, pp0155, configure and/or receive a list with emergency numbers with different URNs e.g. service URNs “urn:service:sos”, “urn:service:sos.ambulance”, “urn:service:sos.police”, “urn:service:sos.fire”, “urn:service:sos.marine”, “urn:service:sos.mountain” and pp0159). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bakker with the teachings of Buckley to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably identifying appropriate and trusted emergency calling numbers in a communication system (Buckley, pp0002).
Claim(s) 8, 15, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakker (US Publication No. 20200100202) in view of Buckley et al. (US Publication No. 20210058761) and further in view of Gellens (US Publication No. 20160029197).
As to claims 8, 15, and 20, Bakker in view of Buckley teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. Bakker further teaches the extended emergency number list (fig. 8, #22, pp0068, pp0027, network may send a local emergency numbers list or an extended local emergency numbers list or both, in the ATTACH ACCEPT or in the TRACKING AREA UPDATE ACCEPT messages by including the emergency number list IE and the extended emergency number list IE). However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the UE is a tester UE and the emergency numbers includes both a tester uniform resource name (URN) and a URN used for non-test emergencies by both tester UEs and non-tester UEs.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Gellens teaches the concept wherein the UE is a tester UE and the emergency numbers includes both a tester uniform resource name (URN) and a URN used for non-test emergencies by both tester UEs and non-tester UEs (fig. 1, pp0394, service URN starting with “test.” may indicate a request for an automated test and pp0401, urn:service:sos.vehicle.manual—This service URN may indicate that an emergency call carrying vehicle sensor (“crash”) data has been placed by an in-vehicle system (IVS)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Bakker and Buckley with the teachings of Gellens to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably providing emergency support capabilities for asserting support for telematics capabilities in vehicle emergency call systems (Gellens, pp0004).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights