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 filing filed on 01/23/2024. In virtue of this filing, claims 1-19, 21-25 and 27-28 are currently presented in the instant application. Claims 20 and 26 are canceled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 01/23/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The specification submitted on 01/23/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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, 12-13, 22 and 25 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).
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.
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 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) 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 and Dunko, 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 and Dunko in order to secure the identifier of user device.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 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) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RAMAMOORTHY et al. (US Pub. No.: 2024/0430265, hereinafter, “Ramamoorthy”).
Regarding claim 8, 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 10, Ramamoorthy further teaches recognizing, by the client application, if the MCData message includes the Talker ID (see [0002]).
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) 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 and Dunko, 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 and Dunko 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) 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 and Dunko, 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 and Dunko 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
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.
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, 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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649