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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US. Pub. No. 2007/0002779 A1; hereinafter “LEE”).
Regarding claim 5, LEE teaches a method performed by a second mission critical push to talk (MCPTT) server (see LEE, fig. 5A, server 540, 545) in a communication system, the method comprising:
in case that a MCPTT client meets criteria and is not in an ad hoc group call (see LEE, fig. 5A, 507, para. [0034], filter criteria), receiving, from a first MCPTT server (see LEE, fig. 5A, server B 550 to server A 545), a first notification message to add the MCPTT client to the ad hoc group call (see LEE, fig. 5A, auto-answer 510a, para. [0035-36]),
wherein the MCPTT client and the second MCPTT server are in different MCPTT system (see LEE, fig. 5, para. [0032], UE-B 565 of network B, and Server A 545 of network A).
Regarding claim 13, LEE teaches a second mission critical push to talk (MCPTT) server (see LEE, fig. 5A, server 540, 545) in a communication system, the second MCPTT server comprising:
a transceiver (see LEE, fig. 2, 203, para. [0014]); and
at least one processor coupled with the transceiver (see LEE, fig. 2, 202, para. [0011]) and configured to:
in case that a MCPTT client meets criteria and is not in an ad hoc group call (see LEE, fig. 5A, 507, para. [0034], filter criteria), receive, from a first MCPTT server (see LEE, fig. 5A, server B 550 to server A 545), a first notification message to add the MCPTT client to the ad hoc group call (see LEE, fig. 5A, auto-answer 510a, para. [0035-36]),
wherein the MCPTT client and the second MCPTT server are in different MCPTT system (see LEE, fig. 5, para. [0032], UE-B 565 of network B, and Server A 545 of network A).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE in view of McColGan et al. (US. Pub. No. 2012/0117230 A1; hereinafter “MCCOLGAN”)
Regarding claim 1, LEE teaches a method performed by a first mission critical push to talk (MCPTT) server in a communication system (see LEE, fig. 5A, server 550,555), the method comprising:
identifying whether a MCPTT client meets criteria used to determine addition of a MCPTT client (see LEE, fig. 5A, 507, para. [0034], filter criteria); and
in case that the MCPTT client meets the criteria and is not in an ad hoc group call (see LEE, fig. 5A, UE-B 565, para. [0033]), transmitting, to a second MCPTT server (see LEE, fig. 5A, server B 550 to server A 545), a first notification message to add the MCPTT client to the ad hoc group call (see LEE, fig. 5A, auto-answer 510a, para. [0035-36]),
wherein the MCPTT client and the second MCPTT server are in different MCPTT system (see LEE, fig. 5, para. [0032], UE-B 565 of network B, and Server A 545 of network A).
LEE is silent to teaching that wherein the criteria used to determine removal of a client.
In the same field of endeavor, MCCOLGAN teaches a method wherein the criteria used to determine removal of a client (see MCCOLGAN, fig. 2, 262, para. [0035-36], removing John Smith).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of LEE with the teaching of MCCOLGAN in order to improve management and efficiency of communication groups (see MCCOLGAN, para. [0003-4]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of LEE and MCCOLGAN teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: in case that the MCPTT client does not meets the criteria and is in the ad hoc group call (see MCCOLGAN, para. [0035]), transmitting, to the second MCPTT server, a second notification message to remove the MCPTT client from the ad hoc group call, wherein the second notification message comprises information on service ID list no longer meeting the criteria (see MCCOLGAN, fig. 2, message 264, para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of LEE and MCCOLGAN teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first notification message comprises information on service ID list meeting the criteria (see MCCOLGAN, fig. 2, 248,264, URI, ad-hoc list, para. [0041]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of LEE and MCCOLGAN teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
in case that the ad hoc group call is to be released by second MCPTT server, receiving, from the second MCPTT server, a third notification message to notify releasing of the ad hoc group call, wherein the third notification message indicates to stop evaluating the criteria (see LEE, fig. 7, 706, para. [0084]).
Regarding claim 9, LEE teaches a first mission critical push to talk (MCPTT) server (see LEE, fig. 5A, server 550,555) in a communication system, the first MCPTT server comprising:
a transceiver (see LEE, fig. 2, 203, para. [0014]); and
at least one processor coupled with the transceiver (see LEE, fig. 2, 202, para. [0011]) and configured to:
identify whether a MCPTT client meets criteria used to determine addition of a MCPTT client (see LEE, fig. 5A, 507, para. [0034], filter criteria); and
in case that the MCPTT client meets the criteria and is not in an ad hoc group call (see LEE, fig. 5A, UE-B 565, para. [0033]), transmit, to a second MCPTT server (see LEE, fig. 5A, server B 550 to server A 545), a first notification message to add the MCPTT client to the ad hoc group call (see LEE, fig. 5A, auto-answer 510a, para. [0035-36]),
wherein the MCPTT client and the second MCPTT server are in different MCPTT system (see LEE, fig. 5, para. [0032], UE-B 565 of network B, and Server A 545 of network A).
LEE is silent to teaching that wherein the criteria used to determine removal of a client.
In the same field of endeavor, MCCOLGAN teaches a device wherein the criteria used to determine removal of a client (see MCCOLGAN, fig. 2, 262, para. [0035-36], removing John Smith).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of LEE with the teaching of MCCOLGAN in order to improve management and efficiency of communication groups (see MCCOLGAN, para. [0003-4]).
Regarding claims 10-12, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claims 2-4, respectively.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claims 2 and 3, respectively.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Renko et al. (US. Pub. No. 2014/0221034 A1; hereinafter “RENKO”)
Regarding claim 8, LEE teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising:
transmitting, to the first MCPTT server, a third notification message to notify releasing of the ad hoc group call, wherein the third notification message indicates to stop evaluating the criteria (see LEE, fig. 7, 706, para. [0084]).
LEE is silent to teaching that comprising
identifying that the ad hoc group call is to be released.
In the same field of endeavor, RENKO teaches a method identifying that the ad hoc group call is to be released (see RENKO, fig. 5, termination event 4, para. [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of LEE and with the teaching of RENKO in order to improve and manage PTT connection and configuration.
Regarding claim 16, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kowalewski (US. Pub. NO. 2009/0135743 A1), Nishimori (2010/0203875), Skedinger (2012/0129516), Westman (2006/0235981), Allen (2016/0381526) teach PTT systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648