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 .
Introduction
This is a response to the applicant’s response filed on 08/18/2026. Claims 1-7, 9-19, 21-25 and 27-28 are currently presented in the instant application. Claims 8, 20 and 26 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument:
In response to applicant’s remark on pages 7-11, the applicant argues Ramamoorthy does not show or suggest "providing an information message, from the first user device to the second user device, wherein the information message includes the Talker ID of the first user device, wherein the information message comprises a mission critical data (MCData) message", as recited in currently amended claim 1.
In response to applicant’s arguments, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. It appears that the applicant is attacking individually references of Worger, Dunko and Ramamoorthy and concludes that there is no impetus to combine them. However, one must consider the combination of references as a whole under a 103 rejection. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Ramamoorthy teaches MCData messages for client devices. The MCData message can store his/her MCData communication (see [0002, 0007 and 0038]).
Examiner, see after combining the teaching of Worger, Dunko and Ramamoorthy that would be resulted in the information message is included the talker ID and MCData. Therefore, there is a strong prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C 103, and proper to combine of Worger, Dunko and Ramamoorthy.
In response to applicant’s remark on pages 11-12, Applicant argues that Ramamoorthy fails to teach “This is not the same as an MCData message including Talker ID, which is a real-time identifier. These are different”, as recited in currently amended claim 10.
In response to applicant’s arguments, examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument. It is clearly seen that the MCData message is included the ID of user client device, so that the application will recognize the user base on the ID in the MCData message (see [0006-0007]).
For the reasons above, the 103 rejections as set forth in the last Office Action stand.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-13, 22, 25 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worger et al. (US Pub. No.: 2005/0250476, hereinafter, “Worger”) in view of Dunko (US Pub. No.: 2006/0114314) and further in view of RAMAMOORTHY et al. (US Pub. No.: 2024/0430265, hereinafter, “Ramamoorthy”).
Regarding claims 1, 27-28, Worger teaches a method and computer system for communications comprising (see figure 1):
a memory which stores instructions;
one or more processors coupled to the memory wherein the one or more processors, when executing the instructions which are stored, are configured to (see figure 1, plurality of mobile units 10-14, it is inherently including memory and processor):
provide push-to-talk (PTT) services over a first communications system (cellular network 30), wherein the first communications system includes a plurality of user devices (see figure 1, plurality of mobile units 10-12, cellular network 30, [0009-0012]);
associate a Talker ID with a first user device from the plurality of user devices on the first communications system, wherein the Talker ID uniquely identifies the first user device (see figure 1, plurality of mobile unit 10 represent a subscriber named Sue, cellular network 30, [0009-0012]);
send a communication (read on voice or text message) from the first user device to a second user device on a second communications system (see figure 1, mobile units 10,13-14, Bill or Doug, cellular network 70, [0009-0017, 0020]);
provide an information message (read on voice or text message there is a meeting in twenty minutes), from the first user device to the second user device, wherein the information message includes the Talker ID of the first user device (see figure 1, mobile units 10,13-14, Bill or Doug, cellular network 70, [0009-0017, 0020], it is clearly seen that voice or text message send from Sue that will include the Sue name and a message with “a meeting in twenty minutes” in order for Doug 14 to recognize voice call or text are from Sue); and
receive the communication and the information message on the second user device (see figure 1, 13-14, Bill or Doug, cellular network 70, [0009-0017, 0020], it is clearly seen that voice or text message send from Sue that will include the Sue name and a message with “a meeting in twenty minutes” in order for Doug 14 to recognize voice call or text are from Sue).
It should be noticed that Worger fails to teach display, on the second user device, the communication and the Talker ID associated with the first user device. However, Dunko teaches display, on the second user device, the communication and the Talker ID associated with the first user device (see [0006, 0015, 0028, 0033], voice call and caller ID or image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Worger into view of Dunko in order to allows a user of a PTT camera-equipped device to activate the microphone and camera substantially simultaneously would be desirable.
Worger and Dunko, in combination, fails to teach the information message comprises a mission critical data (MCData) message. However, Ramamoorthy teaches information message comprises a mission critical data (MCData) message (see [0217, 0427]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ramamoorthy into view of Worger and Dunko in order to connect applicant server with high performance and switching without interrupt the service.
Regarding claim 2, Worger further teaches the communication is a text message, individual voice call, or talk group voice call (see figure 1, group talk, [0014, 0020]).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Worger further teaches the receiving the communication and the information message is accomplished by a client application running on the second user device (see figure 1, 13-14, Bill or Doug, [0009-0017, 0020], PTT application, it is clearly seen that voice or text message send from Sue that will include the Sue name and “a meeting in twenty minutes” in order for Doug 14 to know voice call or texting are from Sue).
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Worger further teaches the receiving the communication and the information message is accomplished by a standard PTT client (see figure 1, 13-14, Bill or Doug, [0009-0017, 0020], PTT application, it is clearly seen that voice or text message send from Sue that will include the Sue name and “a meeting in twenty minutes” in order for Doug 14 to know voice call or texting are from Sue).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Worger further teaches the displaying further comprises showing text on the second user device, wherein the text includes the Talker ID associated with the first user device (see [0020, 0023], it is clearly seen that voice or text message send from Sue that will include the Sue name and “a meeting in twenty minutes” in order for Doug 14 to know voice call or texting are from Sue).
Regarding claim 7, Worger further teaches the information message comprises a text message (see [0020]).
Regarding claim 10, Ramamoorthy further teaches recognizing, by the client application, if the MCData message includes the Talker ID (see [0002]).
Regarding claim 22, Worger further teaches the sending a communication includes sending the communication to a talk group on the second communications system (see figure 1, cellular network 70).
Regarding claim 25, Worger further teaches the first communications system and the second communications system are operated independently (see figure 1, cellular 30 and cellular 70 are operated independently).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worger et al. (US Pub. No.: 2005/0250476, hereinafter, “Worger”) in view of Dunko (US Pub. No.: 2006/0114314) and further in view of RAMAMOORTHY et al. (US Pub. No.: 2024/0430265, hereinafter, “Ramamoorthy”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Griffin et al. (US Patent No.: 11,431,661, hereinafter, “Griffin”).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Worger, Dunko and Ramamoorthy, in combination, fails to teach the displaying further comprises replacing, by the client application running on the second user device, an ordinary user ID from the first communications system with the Talker ID associated with the first user device. However, Griffin teaches the displaying further comprises replacing, by the client application running on the second user device, an ordinary user ID from the first communications system with the Talker ID associated with the first user device (see abstract, private display identifier is replaced to public display identifier).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Griffin into view of Worger, Dunko and Ramamoorthy in order to secure the identifier of user device.
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worger et al. (US Pub. No.: 2005/0250476, hereinafter, “Worger”) in view of Dunko (US Pub. No.: 2006/0114314) and further in view of RAMAMOORTHY et al. (US Pub. No.: 2024/0430265, hereinafter, “Ramamoorthy”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kirmuss et al. (US Pub. No.: 2010/0289695, hereinafter, “Kirmuss”).
Regarding claim 14, Worger, Dunko and Ramamoorthy, in combination, fails to teach the Talker ID includes Talker ID information and a GPS location. However, Kirmuss teaches the Talker ID includes Talker ID information and a GPS location (see [0008, 0021-0022, 0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kirmuss into view of Worger, Dunko and Ramamoorthy in order to provide the location for the user.
Regarding claim 15, Kirmuss further teaches interpreting, by a client application, the GPS location (see [0008, 0021-0022, 0031]).
Regarding claim 16, Kirmuss further teaches showing, on the second user device, the GPS location of the first user device (see [0031]).
Claim(s) 17-19, 21 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worger et al. (US Pub. No.: 2005/0250476, hereinafter, “Worger”) in view of Dunko (US Pub. No.: 2006/0114314) and further in view of RAMAMOORTHY et al. (US Pub. No.: 2024/0430265, hereinafter, “Ramamoorthy”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruelke et al. (US Patent No.: 12,120,536, hereinafter, “Ruelke”).
Regarding claim 17, Worger, Dunko and Ramamoorthy, in combination, fails to teach the first communications system and the second communications system are based on Land Mobile Radio technology (LMR). However, Ruelke teaches teach the first communications system and the second communications system are based on Land Mobile Radio technology (LMR) (see figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ruelke into view of Worger, Dunko and Ramamoorthy in order to support plurality of frequency band.
Regarding claim 18, Ruelke further teaches the first communications system is based on LTE technology and the second communications system is based on LMR technology (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, Ruelke further teaches the first communications system is based on LMR technology, and the second communications system is based on LTE technology (see figure 3).
Regarding claim 21, Ruelke further teaches the first user device is 3GPP-compliant (see col.10, ln.11-15).
Regarding claim 23, Ruelke further teaches the push-to-talk services comprise mission critical push-to-talk services (see col.10, ln.18-20).
Regarding claim 24, Ruelke further teaches the Talker ID identifies a talker on an originating system (TOS) (see figure 3, plurality of users is communicating on radio network).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have question on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
