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 .
Priority
Claims have priority date of 12/20/2023.
Response to Amendment
Office action in response to amendment entered 4/9/2026. Claims 1, 11, 16 (independent) are amended, no claims are added or canceled. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that Chamaria fails to anticipate the amended claims, because it teaches “internal monitoring by a single system, not receiving feedback from the push notification service and then communicating that feedback to a separate PAS.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant also claims a single “system” and so examiner assumes applicant means to say that Chamaria teaches a single “device” that peforms the disclosed tasks instead of a single system. Now, Chamaria does not exclusively teach the use of a single device to perform the tasks and even assuming that it does clearly that device has multiple components that interact such as the interfaces 110 and processors 108 that make up the “system 102” as shown in Fig. 1. But as the updated rejection points at, Chamaria’s teachings are not limited to the use of a single device 102 to perform all of its disclosed steps. Also examiner notes that the use of multiple components to perform the task of a single component is not inventive. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Nenvin v. Erlichmena, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Last examiner notes that applicant’s claims are still broad and do not require the use of multiple physically separate components, see specification ¶31 recites “Though illustrated as discrete components, the present disclosure contemplates that the push proxy 214 may be unitary with the PAS 212, merely acting as an interface with the PNS 216.”
For all these reasons applicants remarks are not persuasive and the rejection of claim 1 is maintained with previous art though grounds are modified to address the claim amendments.
The rejection of all remaining claims is maintained for the same reason.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes specification ¶31 recites “Though illustrated as discrete components, the present disclosure contemplates that the push proxy 214 may be unitary with the PAS 212, merely acting as an interface with the PNS 216.” Thus under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims as recited the “one or more computer processing components” of claim 1 and 16 and the method of claim 11 is interpreted to refer to the SPP 214 as shown in Figure 2 of the specification and also the PAS 212.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 12323503 B1 Chamaria; Umang.
Consider Claim 1
Chamaria teaches A system for enhanced provision of notifications in a wireless telecommunication network (Fig. 1, ¶18 “method 200 may be considered to be implemented in the network 100 of FIG. 1 by the processor(s) 108 of the system 102 in association with the other devices in the network 100”), the system comprising:
a base station configured to wirelessly communicate a notification to a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2, ¶19 “step 202, the system may be configured to receive a request to send the notification to the target user device”); and
one or more computer processing components (¶18 “processors 108 of the system 102”) configured to perform operations comprising:
communicating the notification to a push notification service (Fig. 2, step 208, ¶31 “the system sends the transformed notification payload to the corresponding OEM push service endpoint”);
receiving, from the push notification service, an indication that the notification was not received by the UE (Fig. 2 step 210 ¶32 “system 102 may detect the failure by monitoring delivery status of the notification through callbacks or delivery receipts provided by the OEM push service” AND/OR Fig. 2A step 214 ¶37 “at step 214, the system detects a failure in receiving the notification via the second channel, by the target user device”);
communicating the indication to a push application server (PAS) (Chamaria Col. 5 Lines 60-66 “the method 200 may be considered to be implemented in the network 100 of FIG. 1 by the processor(s) 108 of the system 102 in association with the other devices in the network 100”; Col. 5 Lines 16-30: “The I/O interface 110 may include a variety of software and hardware interfaces, for example, a web interface, a graphical user interface, and the like. The I/O interface 110 may allow the system 102 to interact with the user directly or through the client devices 104. Further, the I/O interface 110 may enable the system 102 to communicate with other computing devices, such as web servers and external data servers (not shown).” Thus taught system of Chamaria and interface 110 in ordinary design communicates the indication between entities in the ordinary course of receiving the failure and forwarding to another component to re-try using another method of transmission as taught; See also Chamaria Fig. 3 PAS 302 “Upon detecting the failure in notification delivery, the system may fetch the notification from the push amplification storage 302 to deliver the notifications to the target user device 304 via some other channel like second or third channel. Upon fetching the active notifications stored in the push amplification storage 302 may be transmitted to the target user device using the second or third channel as discussed in the disclosure. (34) In an embodiment, at step 212, the system in response to detecting the failure, transmits the notification to the target user device using the obtained Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) token via a second channel. For example, When the system detects a failure in delivering a notification through the OEM channel“); and performing, by the PAS in response to receiving the indication (See also Fig. 3 302 PAS and Fig. 2 ¶34 step 212) , one or more delivery mitigation procedures (various steps and teachings of ‘mitigation procedures’ as broadly claimed e.g. Fig. 2, step 204 ¶27 silent notifications for device to refresh notification settings and step 212 ¶34 “the system in response to detecting the failure, transmits the notification to the target user device using the obtained Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) token via a second channel” AND/OR step 216 ¶37 “ in response to detecting the failure, the system transmits the notification to the target user device using a third channel.”).
In the alternative, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Chamaria to include the noted teachings of Chamaria in order to provide taught functionality in network in association with other devices and achieve the expected result of communication between devices and within devices to perform the disclosed tasks. See Chamaria Col. 5 Lines 60-66; Col. 5 Lines 16-30.
Further examiner notes that, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Nenvin v. Erlichmena, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Consider Claims 11 and 16
Chamaria teaches A method for enhanced provision of notifications in a wireless telecommunication network (Fig. 1, ¶18 “method 200 may be considered to be implemented in the network 100 of FIG. 1 by the processor(s) 108 of the system 102 in association with the other devices in the network 100”), the method comprising:
communicating a first notification to a push notification service (Fig. 2, step 208, ¶31 “the system sends the transformed notification payload to the corresponding OEM push service endpoint”) for delivery to a first user equipment (UE) (Fig. 2, step 208, ¶30 “the system may transmit the notification to the target user device using the OEM token via a first channel”);
receiving, from the first UE, a first confirmation that the first notification was delivered to the first UE (Fig. 2 step 208, ¶30 “..when the notification is successfully sent to the target user device. The system may receive an acknowledgement and upon receiving the acknowledgement, the system may update the notification status to ‘delivered’..”);
communicating a second notification to the push notification service for delivery to a second UE; receiving, from the push notification service, an indication that the second notification was not received by the second UE; communicating the indication to a push application server (PAS); and performing, by the PAS in response to receiving the indication, one or more delivery mitigation procedures. (SEE rejection of claim 1 incorporated herein.)
Consider Claim 2
Chamaria teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the notification comprises an instruction to communicate a delivery confirmation to the one or more computer processing components (Fig. 2 step 208, ¶30 “..when the notification is successfully sent to the target user device. The system may receive an acknowledgement and upon receiving the acknowledgement, the system may update the notification status to ‘delivered’..”).
Consider Claims 5, 12 and 17
Chamaria teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the notification is a push notification (¶19 “ the notification may be a push notification. . . may include various types of content, such as text messages, images, videos, or interactive elements like buttons”).
Consider Claim 10
Chamaria teaches The system of claim 9, wherein the one or more mitigation procedures are performed in response to a determination that a second notification was successfully delivered to a second UE (Fig. 2 step 208, ¶30 “..when the notification is successfully sent to the target user device. The system may receive an acknowledgement and upon receiving the acknowledgement, the system may update the notification status to ‘delivered’..” where ‘one or more mitigation procedures’ is a broad claim, not defined in this claim in particularity, not defined in a limited manner in the specification).
Claim(s) 3-4, 6-7, 14-15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12323503 B1 Chamaria; Umang in view of US 20250148894 A1 Givon; Dor
Consider Claim 3
Chamaria teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the instruction for the UE to communicate the delivery confirmation (See claim 2). Chamaria does not teach the instruction includes a requirement that the notification be displayed on a user interface of the UE.
Givon teaches the instruction includes a requirement that the notification be displayed on a user interface of the UE (¶39 low urgency and high urgency notifications and specifically “upon determining that a specific alert condition is associated with a relatively higher urgency level or value, the alert notification handler may generate for that condition more intrusive alert notifications, such as automated phone call(s), push notifications, application alarm triggers, etc” ¶40 parameters mapping condition types to urgency levels ¶41 notification handler adapted to manage delivery of the generated alert notifications, and ¶41 “the handler may prompt the recipient for a response to the alert notification” and “the response may cause the alert notification handler to simply log a delivery and delivery confirmation of the alert notification”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Chamaria to include the noted teachings of Givon in order to prevent dangerous and possibly harmful incidents, alert situations or alert conditions (Givon ¶1).
Consider Claim 4
Chamaria teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the instruction for the UE to communicate the delivery confirmation (See claim 2). Chamaria does not teach the instruction includes a requirement that a user interacts with the notification.
Givon teaches the instruction includes a requirement that a user interacts with the notification (¶39 low urgency and high urgency notifications and specifically “upon determining that a specific alert condition is associated with a relatively higher urgency level or value, the alert notification handler may generate for that condition more intrusive alert notifications, such as automated phone call(s), push notifications, application alarm triggers, etc” ¶40 parameters mapping condition types to urgency levels ¶41 notification handler adapted to manage delivery of the generated alert notifications, and ¶41 “the handler may prompt the recipient for a response to the alert notification” and “the response may cause the alert notification handler to simply log a delivery and delivery confirmation of the alert notification”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Chamaria to include the noted teachings of Givon in order to prevent dangerous and possibly harmful incidents, alert situations or alert conditions (Givon ¶1).
Consider Claims 6, 14 and 19
Chamaria teaches The system of claim 2 but does not teach the notification is a voice call notification.
Givon teaches wherein the notification is a voice call notification (Givon ¶39 “automated phone call(s)”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Chamaria to include the noted teachings of Givon in order to prevent dangerous and possibly harmful incidents, alert situations or alert conditions (Givon ¶1).
Consider Claims 7, 15, and 20
The combination teaches The system of claim 6, wherein the one or more delivery mitigation procedures comprises instructing the UE to refresh its push token (Chamaria Fig. 2, Step 204 ¶27 “the server may send the silent notification by including a payload that instructs the application to check notification settings. . .The application [on the UE] may detect any change in the target user device's notification preferences since the last time the application checked the settings. . .The local storage may be updated with the new opt-in status”).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12323503 B1 Chamaria; Umang in view of US 20050050148 A1 Mohammadioun, Said et al.
Consider Claim 8
Chamaria teaches The system of claim 7, wherein the one or more delivery mitigation procedures further comprises re-attempting delivery of the notification to the UE (Chamaria ¶31 “If the notification is not delivered successfully, the system may implement a retry mechanism to attempt re-delivery” similarly ¶34) prior to instructing the UE to refresh its push token (¶27 “The periodic monitoring may comprise transmitting silent notifications to the target user device at regular intervals of time” thus retransmissions occur prior since silent notifications are sent periodically).
Chamaria does not explicitly teach re-attempting delivery a predetermined number of times.
Mohammadi teaches re-attempting delivery a predetermined number of times (¶35 “... If not, the event notice send agent checks to see if the number of retries has exceeded the retry limit. If the retry limit has been exceeded, then the device is marked as out of coverage and the transmission is complete. If the retry limit has not been exceeded, the retry count is incremented, the wait period is increased, the event notice message is resent via SMTP and the event notice send agent goes back to waiting for the time period to expire..” and also claim 11 or 25)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Chamaria to include the noted teachings of Mohammadi in order for providing notification on remote devices (Mohammadi ¶2)
Consider Claims 9, 13 and 18
Chamaria teaches The system of claim 5, wherein the one or more delivery mitigation procedures further comprises re-attempting delivery of the notification to the UE (Chamaria ¶31 “If the notification is not delivered successfully, the system may implement a retry mechanism to attempt re-delivery” similarly ¶34).
Chamaria does not explicitly teach re-attempting delivery a predetermined number of times.
Mohammadi teaches re-attempting delivery a predetermined number of times (¶35 “... If not, the event notice send agent checks to see if the number of retries has exceeded the retry limit. If the retry limit has been exceeded, then the device is marked as out of coverage and the transmission is complete. If the retry limit has not been exceeded, the retry count is incremented, the wait period is increased, the event notice message is resent via SMTP and the event notice send agent goes back to waiting for the time period to expire..” and also claim 11 or 25)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Chamaria to include the noted teachings of Mohammadi in order for providing notification on remote devices (Mohammadi ¶2)
Pertinent Prior Art(s)
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the current rejection is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200351779 A1 SHARMA; Vivek et al.
A method of operating a terminal device in a wireless telecommunications system comprising the terminal device and a plurality of network access nodes, wherein the method comprises: establishing first wake-up signalling configuration information for a first network access node covering a current location for the terminal device, wherein the first wake-up signalling configuration information comprises an indication of a first wake-up signalling format to be transmitted by the first network access node in advance of transmitting a paging message to indicate the terminal device should seek to decode the paging message, and an indication of an associated first wake-up signalling validity period for the first wake-up signalling format.
WO 2021154011 A1 DAS KAUSHIK et al.
A method for delivering notification information by an electronic device is disclose. The method includes receiving at least one notification. The method includes determining a current context of a user and a historical data associated with the at least one notification. The method includes identifying at least one notification, determining notification information to be delivered to a user based on identified at least one notification, and transmitting notification information to at least one of IoT device with a delivery plan, so that IoT device delivers notification information to a user according to delivery plan.
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 UMAIR AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1323. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-5 PM EST or by emailing UMAIR.AHSAN@USPTO.GOV.
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 at (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 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)
/UMAIR AHSAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights