DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicants' communication filed on February 19 , 2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16, 18-20 are amended, Claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 are cancelled, and presents arguments, is hereby acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14 and 16-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 filed on February 19 , 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues in its Argument that cited arts fail to teach limitations of the amended independent Claim 1
Examiner replies: In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111. Further, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP § 2145(VI).
Regarding limitations the amended Claim 1 of the instant case,
generate at least a first alert message and a second alert message, each of the first alert message and second alert message corresponding to the content of the alert, wherein the first alert message is in a first language and the second alert message is in a second language; Sennett teaches e.g., par. 18-29, “The multiple language EAS alert message comprises language specific alert messages 14, 16, and 18. Each language specific alert message 14, 16, 18 comprises the alert message in a predetermined language “; “if the languages supported for the wireless EAS alerts vary (e.g., based upon factors such as wireless alert source, target area of the wireless alert and wireless operator policies), the wireless EAS language vector is provided with each wireless EAS alert.”;
and transmit at least the first alert message and the second alert message to a network element, causing the network element to broadcast at least the first alert message and the second alert message to a plurality of mobile devices associated with the target area, Sennett teaches e.g., par. 36, “At step 102, the broadcast server 114 provides the multiple language EAS alert message with the alert message in each appropriate language, and, if generated, the EAS language vector, to the wireless broadcast network 116. The wireless broadcast network 116 broadcasts to the mobile device 124, at step 104, the multiple EAS alert message.:,
wherein the transmit includes transmit with the first alert message and the second alert message a link to a translation the content of the alert to a third language Sennett teaches e.g., par. 25-30, “the wireless EAS language vector 26 is utilized in conjunction with the above described multiple language wireless EAS alert messages. The wireless EAS language vector 26 comprises an optional EAS alert type indicator portion 28, a language indicator portion 28, 32, 36, and pointer portions 30, 34, 38, for each respective language version of the EAS alert message”; “as depicted in FIG. 4, for languages in which the EAS alert message is available, pointer information to the associated channel for that specific language version is provided”; “Each respective pointer portion 48, 52, 56, of the wireless EAS language vector 42 is indication of the channel 44, and optionally location therein of the EAS alert message 58, 60, 62, in the indicated language.”, where the pointer/vector is equivalent to the link directing the device to the 3rd language translation.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that Edge as modified teaches all limitations as claimed.
Conclusion: Examiner has shown the rejections set forth in the Office Action of November 19, 2025 are proper. In light of amended Claims, new grounds of rejection are set forth below. Since the new grounds of rejection are necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims, the present action is made final.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190246260 A1 (Edge), in view of US 20190246260 A1 (El-Mankabady) and in further view of US 20160134386 A1 (Sennett).
Regarding Claims 1, 7-8, 11, 16-17 and 19:
A system for expanding a language set for wireless emergency alerting, the system comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable memory storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: receive an alert generated by an alerting authority, the alert including content of the alert and a target area; determine at least one language to broadcast the alert based at least in part on languages used by people in the target area; generate at least a first alert message and a second alert message, each of the first alert message and second alert message corresponding to the content of the alert, wherein the first alert message is in a first language and the second alert message is in a second language; and transmit at least the first alert message and the second alert message to a network element, causing the network element to broadcast at least the first alert message and the second alert message to a plurality of mobile devices associated with the target area, wherein the transmit includes transmit with the first alert message and the second alert message a link to a translation the content of the alert to a third language (Edge: Figs. 1-2 and 4, a system configuration that communicates wireless emergency alerts (WEA) from authorities to the wireless users through wireless network, where the WEA delivery is location based, e.g., Figs. 3 and 5-6; and Figs. 7-9, detail methods for receiving WEAs from authorities, which identifies cells or target areas to be broadcasted and communicates accordingly; par. 68, messages may use and/or expand the coding schemes specified in the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Technical Specification (TS) 23.038 that includes UCS-2 and GSM-7 among others).
Edge does not teach explicitly on convert WEA message into multilingual massages. However, El-Mankabady teaches (El-Mankabady: Figs. 3-6, messages can be converted into multilingual languages before be broadcasted or pushed out).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Edge with convert WEA message into multilingual massages as further taught by El-Mankabady. The advantage of doing so is to provide a method to have alert capabilities such as audio and visual alert capabilities and be tailored or directed to individuals (El-Mankabady: Background).
Edge does not teach explicitly on methods to broadcasts multiple alert messages in different languages. However, Sennett teaches (Sennett: Figs. 1-6, in multiple ways to perform multiple alert messages in different languages).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Edge with methods to broadcasts multiple alert messages in different languages as further taught by Sennett. (Sennett: Background).
Sennett further teaches:
generate at least a first alert message and a second alert message, each of the first alert message and second alert message corresponding to the content of the alert, wherein the first alert message is in a first language and the second alert message is in a second language (Sennett teaches e.g., par. 18-29, “The multiple language EAS alert message comprises language specific alert messages 14, 16, and 18. Each language specific alert message 14, 16, 18 comprises the alert message in a predetermined language “; “if the languages supported for the wireless EAS alerts vary (e.g., based upon factors such as wireless alert source, target area of the wireless alert and wireless operator policies), the wireless EAS language vector is provided with each wireless EAS alert.”);
and transmit at least the first alert message and the second alert message to a network element, causing the network element to broadcast at least the first alert message and the second alert message to a plurality of mobile devices associated with the target area (Sennett teaches e.g., par. 36, “At step 102, the broadcast server 114 provides the multiple language EAS alert message with the alert message in each appropriate language, and, if generated, the EAS language vector, to the wireless broadcast network 116. The wireless broadcast network 116 broadcasts to the mobile device 124, at step 104, the multiple EAS alert message);
wherein the transmit includes transmit with the first alert message and the second alert message a link to a translation the content of the alert to a third language (Sennett teaches e.g., par. 25-30, “the wireless EAS language vector 26 is utilized in conjunction with the above described multiple language wireless EAS alert messages. The wireless EAS language vector 26 comprises an optional EAS alert type indicator portion 28, a language indicator portion 28, 32, 36, and pointer portions 30, 34, 38, for each respective language version of the EAS alert message”; “as depicted in FIG. 4, for languages in which the EAS alert message is available, pointer information to the associated channel for that specific language version is provided”; “Each respective pointer portion 48, 52, 56, of the wireless EAS language vector 42 is indication of the channel 44, and optionally location therein of the EAS alert message 58, 60, 62, in the indicated language.”, where the pointer/vector is equivalent to the link directing the device to the 3rd language translation).
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, Edge as modified further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first language is English and the second language is Spanish (Sennett: Figs. 3-6).
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Edge as modified further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system further to: determine a penetration of people speaking a third language in the target area; and determine the third language to broadcast the alert based on the penetration (Sennett: e.g., par. 29, multilingual alerts depend on wireless EAS language vector. It is further noted that a wireless device registration asks users for preferred language(s), which is an indicator of a penetration level of a particular language be used).
Regarding Claims 5 and 14, Edge as modified further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system further to: generate a third alert message including the link to the translation of the content of the alert to the third language (El-Mankabady: e.g., par. 37).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Edge as modified further teaches:
The system of claim 5, wherein the third alert message is encoded using a coding scheme different from the first alert message and the second alert message.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Edge as modified further teaches:
The system of claim 7, wherein the third alert message is encoded using universal character set -2 (UCS-2), and the first alert message and the second alert message are encoded using global system for mobile communication -7 (GSM-7).
Regarding Claims 9 and 18, Edge as modified further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the network element is further caused to: determine one or more cells to broadcast at least the first alert message and second alert message based at least in part on the target area; and transmit at least the first alert message and second alert message to one or more access points associated with the one or more cells, respectively, causing the one or more access points to send at least the first alert message and the second alert message to the plurality of mobile devices (e.g., Edge: Fig. 4, system configuration; and/or leverage known relay system and etc.).
Regarding Claim 20, all limitations are taught by Claims 3-5. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as Claims 3-5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ZHITONG CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1936. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:30am - 5pm.
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 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.
/ZHITONG CHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights