Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim rejections 35 USC 103
2. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
3. Claims 1-6, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aggarwal et al WO 2010009261 A1 (hereafter Aggarwal). in view of Wawrowski WO 2018056847-A1.
4. Consider claim 19. Aggarwal teaches a talkgroup server (32 see server-arbitrated in claim 1 of Aggarwal), comprising: a communications interface; and an electronic processor (both the interface and processor are inherently contained in both the server and communication device 14) communicatively coupled to the communications interface, the electronic processor configured to: receive, via the communications interface, information (reads on current location in 0033) associated with a plurality of communication devices that are each operated by a respective one of a plurality of members of a talk group (70, 72, 74 and 76); determine that the information indicates that at least one communication device from the plurality of communication devices is compromised (read on distance to the area in 0033); receive, via the communications interface, a request to initiate a group call between the members of the talk group (70, 72, 74 and 76); determine whether the request is associated with an incident assigned to the member of the talk group; in response to determining that the request is associated with the incident assigned to the members of the talk group, obtain one or more incident-response communication requirements associated with responding to the incident (see the end of 0033 where the incident is where the active device moves out of range and is then restricted); and restrict or allow the participation of the at least one communication device in the group call established between the members of the talk group based at least in part on the incident-response communication requirements associated with responding to the incident. Aggarwal fails to teach that the information is actually “security” information. Wawrowski et al. from the same field of endeavor teaches in (0014 and 0015) a trunk system using a server 26 (0040) where a security event (officer in trouble), can lead to restricting access to some or all voice communication in or around the group call. It would have been obvious before the effective date to add security-based information as taught by Wawroski et al in addition to distance or time to allow for expansion of the system in other environments, thus making it more marketable.
Method claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 19 since the recited elements will perform the claimed steps.
4. Regarding claim 2. Aggarwal teaches (0033) in response to determining that the request is not associated with any incident (time limit expired) assigned to the members of the talk group, restricting the participation of the at least one communication device in the group call established between the members of the talk group.
5. Regarding claim 3. Aggarwal teaches restricting or allowing comprises restricting the participation of the at least one communication device in the group call, the method comprising: restricting the at least one communication device from one or more of transmitting or receiving communications during the group call (see terminate an active call immediately in 0033).
6. Regarding claim 4. Aggarwal teaches restricting or allowing comprises allowing the participation of the at least one communication device in the group call, the method comprising: allowing the at least one communication device to one or more of transmit or receive communications during the group call (see allowing communication in 0033).
7. Regarding claim 5. Wawrowski teaches in 0037: transmitting a notification to the plurality of communication devices indicating that the security (reads on “covert” message) of the at least one communication device is compromised.
8. Regarding claim 20. Aggarwal teaches the incident-response communication requirements include one or more of an incident-response criticality requirement, an incident-response confidentiality requirement, or an incident-response member availability requirement (0033 teaches time limits which reads on member availability. Note, in view of the “or” in the limitation, the other limitations are not being treated on the merits.
9. Method claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 20 since the recited element would perform the claimed step.
10. Claims 7-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. Regarding dependent claim 7, the prior art of record fails to teach or make obvious that a particular one of the incident-response criticality requirement, the incident-response confidentiality requirement, or the incident-response member availability requirement should be prioritized over other incident-response communication requirements in determining whether to restrict or allow participation of security-compromised communication devices in a group call and that allowing the participation of the at least one communication device in the group call is further based at least in part on prioritizing the particular one of the particular one of the incident-response criticality requirement, the incident-response confidentiality requirement, or the incident-response member availability requirement over the other incident-response communication requirements. 12. Dependent claims 9-18 are objected to since they depend on claim 7. 13. Regarding dependent claim 8, the prior art or record fails to teach or make obvious that the first member being assigned to a first role for responding to the incident; determining, at the talkgroup server, whether the plurality of members of the talk group includes a second member satisfying the incident-response member availability requirement, the incident-response member availability requirement requiring that (i) the second member is available to participate in the group call, (ii) the security information indicates that the security of at least one other communication device operated by the second member is not compromised, and (iii) the second member is assigned to a second role that is equivalent to the first role for responding to the incident; and wherein restricting or allowing the participation of the at least one communication device in the group call is based at least in part on the second member satisfying the incident-response member availability requirement.
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
15. Lee US 20210294895 A1 teaches the computer apparatus 200 may restrict a client device in which the malware is determined to be present. For example, the computer apparatus 200 may suspend providing of a service to the corresponding client device or may request the corresponding client device to reinstall the client program. The computer apparatus 200 may restrict the client device that is determined to have malware installed, such that the corresponding client device may not use a service provided from the computer apparatus 200. Note in (0040) it states the client device maybe a smartphone.
16. Du WO-2015085556-A1 teaches in (0028) the system planner may use the scheme and index fields to make those CILs defined as global CILs for all group addresses available to all subscribers or to restrict access to those CILs defined as dedicated CILs. The system planner may determine which combinations of the scheme, index and bitmask configurations can be made available to some subscribers. In order to reduce the complexity associated with defining multiple CILs in a multi-site trunking system, the CILs may be defined according to a user configuration associated with the sending radio. Considering that each user may only contact a limited number of target radios and talk groups, basing the CIL configuration on the user configuration makes the CIL configuration easier to define for multiple call scenarios.
17. Mienville WO 2006129048 A2 teaches the management module can restrict the participation of a user depending on the level of quality available or chosen by this user to participate in the PTT session. As a result, the other participants perceive less and are less bothered by the poor quality of the telecommunication service used by one of the participants.
18. Jabara et al US 20120135711 A1 teaches using the data storage area 184 also stores a list of other nearby wireless communication devices that form part of the short-range wireless communication network 116. In addition, the data storage area 184 may include an Allowed List 184a and a Blocked List 184b in connection with device authentication. As will be described in greater detail below, the Allowed List 184a contains identities of nearby wireless communication devices that have been verified while the Blocked List 184b includes a list of nearby wireless communication devices that have been determined not to be authentic or which the user, their own discretion, has decided to block.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 3pm and Fri from 6am to 10am
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646