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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The claims are now newly rejected with the incorporation of the Caro reference, whereby including the use of satellites to communication emergency messages. Caro does disclose the use of satellites to communicate emergency messages to request assistance, specifically the limitation to
receive, via the NTN and based at least in part on the request, an emergency alert message and a reference location associated with the emergency alert message ([0545]: use of satellite network to communicate emergency messages for assistance).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Caro’s satellites to be part of the network to communicate emergencies requiring assistance to further save lives and expand coverage areas where there are communication coverages.
Therefore, the claims are still not yet in condition for allowance and are still rejected as shown below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks et al. (US 2021/0329438; hereinafter Brooks) in view of Sammour et al (US 2009/0239554; hereinafter Sammour) in further view of Caro et al. (US 2023/0308538; hereinafter Caro).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 16, Brooks, discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the UE to:
receive, an emergency alert message and a reference location associated with the emergency alert message (Abstract; [0036]: using geofencing techniques to determine if the received emergency message is within the affected location to be displayed); and
provide the emergency alert message for display based at least in part on a current location associated with the UE being within a threshold distance from the reference location (Abstract; [0036]: using geofencing techniques to determine if the received emergency message is within the affected location to be displayed).
Brooks discloses all the particulars of the claim including the use of the NTN for emergency communications ([0018]: satellite network), but is unclear about the limitation to
transmit, via a non-terrestrial network (NTN), a request to register for emergency alerts.
However, Sammour does disclose said argued limitation above in paragraphs [0062]-[0063], describing the capability of the UE being able to register to receive emergency notification messages.
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Sammour’s disclosure to be able to register for emergency services that will keep the user informed and safe.
Brooks in view of Sammour discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the use of an NTN (i.e. satellite network) and therefore the limitation to
receive, via the NTN and based at least in part on the request, an emergency alert message and a reference location associated with the emergency alert message.
However, Caro does disclose the use of satellites to communicate emergency messages to request assistance, specifically the limitation to
receive, via the NTN and based at least in part on the request, an emergency alert message and a reference location associated with the emergency alert message ([0545]: use of satellite network to communicate emergency messages for assistance).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Caro’s satellites to be part of the network to communicate emergencies requiring assistance to further save lives and expand coverage areas where there are communication coverages.
Regarding claims 3, 12, 18, Brooks discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
discard the emergency alert message based at least in part on the current location not being within the threshold distance from the reference location (Abstract; [0036]: using geofencing techniques to determine if the received emergency message is within the affected location to be displayed).
Regarding claims 4, 11, 12, and 19, Brooks discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
determine the current location associated with the UE Abstract; [0036]: using geofencing techniques to determine if the received emergency message is within the affected location to be displayed; and
compare the current location associated with the UE and the reference location, wherein the emergency alert message is displayed or discarded depending on the comparison Abstract; [0036]: using geofencing techniques to determine if the received emergency message is within the affected location to be displayed.
Regarding claims 7, and 14, Brooks discloses wherein the emergency alert message is an earthquake and tsunami warning system (ETWS) alert message or a commercial mobile alert system (CMAS) alert message (Abstract; [0036]: using geofencing techniques to determine if the received emergency message is within the affected location to be displayed; used in mobile networks and WEA systems).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Sammour in further view of Caro in further view of Lee et al. (US 10,531,268; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claims 2, and 17, Brooks in view of Sammour discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about wherein, to receive the emergency alert message, the one or more processors are further configured to cause the UE to:
receive the emergency alert message by a system information block (SIB) module of the UE or a radio resource control (RRC) layer of the UE.
However, in a similar system Lee does disclose the limitation of receive the emergency alert message by a system information block (SIB) module of the UE or a radio resource control (RRC) layer of the UE (Col 17, lines 5-20: the use of RRC layer for the emergency broadcasting system).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Lee’s ETWS and WEA (Col 15, lines 20-67) features and disclosure to further provide transmission capability to mobiles within the LTE networks.
Regarding claims 5, 13, and 20, Brooks in view of Sammour discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about wherein the emergency alert message is delivered based at least in part on NTN short message service (SMS) over non-access stratum (NAS) signaling, and the emergency alert message is processed using an SMS layer of the UE.
However, Lee does disclose the limitations of
wherein the emergency alert message is delivered based at least in part on NTN short message service (SMS) over non-access stratum (NAS) signaling, and the emergency alert message is processed using an SMS layer of the UE (Col 5 line 20 - 6, line 45: use of NAS and use of SMS is incorporated: under other publications “Ls-Use of SMS and CBS for emergencies); .
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Lee’s ETWS and WEA (Col 15, lines 20-67) features and disclosure to further provide transmission capability to mobiles within the LTE networks.
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 20, Brooks in view of Sammour discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about wherein the request indicates a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) location associated with the UE, and the UE is registered to receive emergency alert messages for a geographical area that includes the GNSS location of the UE.
However, Lee does disclose the limitations of
wherein the request indicates a global navigation satellite system (GNSS) location associated with the UE, and the UE is registered to receive emergency alert messages for a geographical area that includes the GNSS location of the UE (Col 6, line 20: use of GNSS).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Lee’s ETWS and WEA (Col 15, lines 20-67) features and disclosure to further provide transmission capability to mobiles within the LTE networks.
Regarding claims 8, and 15, Brooks in view of Sammour discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about wherein the UE is an NTN narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT) equipped UE, and the UE is camped on an NTN NB-IoT cell.
However, Lee does disclose the limitation of wherein the UE is an NTN narrowband Internet of Things (NB-IoT) equipped UE, and the UE is camped on an NTN NB-IoT cell (Col 31, lines 24-25: use of narrowband for transmission broadcast).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Lee’s ETWS and WEA (Col 15, lines 20-67) features and disclosure to further provide transmission capability to mobiles within the LTE networks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUCK HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/CHUCK HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights