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 § 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.
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) 1-2, 4, 6, 9,11-12, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proux et al. US Patent Pub. No.:2012/0150538 A1, hereinafter, ‘Proux’ in view of Dupre et al US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0203768 A1, hereinafter, ‘Dupre’.
Consider Claim 9 and as applied to claims 1 and 15, Proux teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions recorded thereon, wherein the instructions when executed by at least one data processor of a wireless device cause the wireless device to: connect to a terrestrial communication network from a terrestrial communication network such that a wireless communication service is provided by the terrestrial communication network(see architecture as described with respect to figure 1); receive a request from a user of the wireless device to perform a voice call to a terminating device (e.g., see at least 0027 and figure 2 – “At step S104, a user of device 14 or 16 (the caller) desires to speak with the user of device 10 and enters the phone number of device 10 on his device 14, 16”); in response to receiving the request to perform the voice call, redirect from a voice call function to a text messaging function(e.g., see at least 0028 and figure 2 – “The communication station 20 recognizes that the mobile phone is operating in silent mode (S105). The caller is routed to the message system 42, which may present the caller with a prompt to enter a voice message (step S106) to be accessed by the recipient via the recipient's message service. The caller may elect to record a voice message (step S108). Additionally or alternatively, the message system 42 prompts the caller to record a voice-to-text message (a voice message to be converted to an SMS message) if desired (step S110).” – see also 0033); receive a first text message input from the user(e.g., see at least 0029 – “the message system 42 receives the voice-to-text message at step S116.” and figure 2 ); transmit the first text message over the terrestrial communication network, wherein the first text message is transmitted as a first short message service (SMS) message; and receive over the non-terrestrial communication network, from the terminating device, a second text message, wherein the terminating device is capable of receiving the first SMS message, and wherein the second text message is received as a second SMS message (e.g., see at least 0033 and figure 2 - “At step S122, the generated SMS message 28 is sent by the message system 42 to the recipient's mobile phone 10 where it may be automatically displayed on the screen 26.”).
However, Proux does not specifically teach connect to a non-terrestrial communication network from a terrestrial communication network such that a wireless communication service is provided by the non-terrestrial communication network; transmit the first text message over the non-terrestrial communication network.
In analogous art, Dupre teaches a non-terrestrial communication network from a terrestrial communication network such that a wireless communication service is provided by the non-terrestrial communication network (e.g., see at least figure 1); transmit the first text message over the non-terrestrial communication network (see at least claim 11 – “the smart phone is configured to send and receive—via satellite communication—an SMS with another identified smartphone…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try modify the teachings of Proux to include the teachings of Dupre for the purpose of expanding wireless services to those provided by the advantages of satellite and SMS data as suggested by Dupre and Proux.
Consider Claim 2, Proux teaches wherein the wireless device transmits the first text message and receives the second text message over a public land mobile network (PLMN) (e.g., see messages transmitted over the network as described in 0021).
Consider Claims 4, 11 and 17, Proux teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: in response to connecting to terrestrial communication network, activate a speech-to-text application based on the request from the user of the wireless device to perform the voice call to the terminating device; record the user's voice as an audio file; and convert, using the speech-to-text application, the audio file into the first SMS message (e.g., see voice to text in at least 0028 which is activated based on being a systematic feature).
However, Proux does not specifically teach connecting to a non-terrestrial network.
Dupre teaches connecting to a non-terrestrial network (see at least claim 11 – “the smart phone is configured to send and receive—via satellite communication—an SMS with another identified smartphone…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date to modify Proux to include the teachings of Dupree to arrive at in response to connecting to the non-terrestrial communication network, activate a speech-to-text application based on the request from the user of the wireless device to perform the voice call to the terminating device; record the user's voice as an audio file; and convert, using the speech-to-text application, the audio file into the first SMS message for the purpose of expanding wireless services to those provided by the advantages of satellite and SMS data as suggested by Dupre and Proux.
Consider Claims 6,12, and 18, Proux teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: in response to receiving the request to perform the voice call, generate a notification indicating that the non-terrestrial communication network is limited to text-based messaging; and render the notification to the wireless device (e.g., see at least 0028 “prompt to enter a voice message (step S106) to be accessed by the recipient via the recipient's message service. The caller may elect to record a voice message (step S108). Additionally or alternatively, the message system 42 prompts the caller to record a voice-to-text message (a voice message to be converted to an SMS message) if desired (step S110)”.)
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proux et al. US Patent Pub. No.:2012/0150538 A1, hereinafter, ‘Proux’ in view of Dupre et al US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0203768 A1, hereinafter, ‘Dupre’ and further in view of Mekuria 2002/0034956 A1.
Consider Claims 5, Proux as modified by Dupre teaches the claimed invention except wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: analyze text contained in the second text message; convert, using a text-to-speech application, the second text message into an audio message; and render the audio message on the wireless device.
In analogous art, Mekuria teaches wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: analyze text contained in the second text message; convert, using a text-to-speech application, the second text message into an audio message; and render the audio message on the wireless device (e.g., see at least 0009 – “a mobile terminal that includes a receiver for receiving voice and text messages over an RF channel. The mobile terminal further includes a text-to-speech converter that converts the transmitted text messages to audible signals.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: analyze text contained in the second text message; convert, using a text-to-speech application, the second text message into an audio message; and render the audio message on the wireless device for the purpose of trying to take advantage of the reduced bandwidth required for transmitting text messages from a central station to a mobile terminal subscriber and provides a user friendly interface for receiving text messages.
Claim(s) 7, 13, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proux et al. US Patent Pub. No.:2012/0150538 A1, hereinafter, ‘Proux’ in view of Dupre et al US Patent Pub. No.: 2021/0203768 A1, hereinafter, ‘Dupre’ and further in view of Mekuria 2002/0034956 A1 and further in view of Doulton US Patent Pub. No.: 2007/00546678 A1.
Consider Claims 7, 13 and 19, Proux as modified by Dupre and further modified by Mekuria teaches the claimed invention except dividing the first text message into multiple text messages based on a number of characters contained in the first text message, wherein each text message of the multiple text messages has a maximum character count of 160 characters.
However, in analogous art, Doulton teaches operators will often be able to significantly shorten messages to fit them within the current SMS text message ceiling of 160 characters (or else fit longer messages into multiple SMS messages via standard concatenation as noted in paragraph 0059.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include dividing the first text message into multiple text messages based on a number of characters contained in the first text message, wherein each text message of the multiple text messages has a maximum character count of 160 characters since operators will often be able to significantly shorten messages to fit them within the current SMS text message ceiling of 160 characters (or else fit longer messages into multiple SMS messages via standard concatenation as taught by Doulton.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 8, 10, 14, 16 and 20 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record to not teach or render obvious receiving from the non-terrestrial communication network a set of network constraints, wherein the set of network constraints restrict a mode of communication that is accessible to the wireless device on the non-terrestrial communication network; in response to receiving the set of network constraints, determine, based on the set of network constraints, one or more particular device configurations with which the wireless device is to comply when connected with the non-terrestrial communication network; and modify the one or more particular device configurations of the wireless device to comply with the non-terrestrial communication network, wherein the one or more particular device configurations modified restrict the mode of communication allowed by the wireless device and wherein the wireless device simulates a voice call between the wireless device and the terminating device, and wherein the instructions further cause the wireless device to: receive a first audio message from the user of the wireless device; convert, using a speech-to-text application, the first audio message into the first text message; transmit the first text message to the terminating device; cause the terminating device to convert, using a text-to-speech application, the first text message back into the first audio message; in response to the terminating device receiving a second audio message from a user of the terminating device, cause the terminating device to convert, using the speech-to-text application, the second audio message into the second text message; receive the second text message from the terminating device; and convert, using the text-to-speech application, the second text message back into the second audio message.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646