DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the most recent papers filed 10/29/2025.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/3/2026 have been fully considered, but are deemed not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that Li fails to disclose “to fashion the MSS operational control signals with a communication protocol for the transmitting, the communication protocol being compatible with a first radio access technology (RAT) of the network entity used to communicate with one or more user equipments (UEs) served by the network entity…the MSS operational control signals including enhanced positioning protocol signals that encapsulate network MSS interface protocol signals.” This was not contended in the rejection in the Office Action mailed 12/16/2025.
On pages 10-11, Applicant argues that Matthieu fails to teach “to fashion the MSS operational control signals with a communication protocol for the transmitting, the communication protocol being compatible with a first radio access technology (RAT) of the network entity used to communicate with one or more user equipments (UEs) served by the network entity…the MSS operational control signals including enhanced positioning protocol signals that encapsulate network MSS interface protocol signals.” In support of this argument, Applicant argue that Matthieu does not disclose encapsulating communications or commands of the first communication protocol in the second communication protocol.
However, in the rejection, Matthieu is asserted to teach “to fashion the MSS operation control signals with a communication protocol being compatible with a first radio access technology (RAT) of the one or more MSS entities and being incompatible with a second RAT of the network entity used to communicate with one or more user equipments (UEs) served by the network entity, the first RAT being different from the second RAT.” This section does not recite encapsulation. Further, the encapsulation would have the enhanced positioning protocol signals encapsulate network MSS interface protocol signals, where the MSS operational control signals include the enhanced positioning protocol signals. Thus, the instant claim does not actually require that any information of the first protocol is encapsulated in the second protocol, as a whole. Instead, information that is provided in the first protocol (and thus would be encapsulated in the first protocol) would then be encapsulated in the second protocol, which could include extracting the information from the communication in the first protocol and repackaging such in a communication in the second protocol.
It is also noted that as written, claim 1 does not appear to require any communication using the second RAT or the UEs on the second RAT.
On pages 11-12, Applicant argues that Ramachandran does not disclose using a RAT that is not capable of communicating with a UE. First, it is noted that this is not required of the instant claim, as the instant claim would still allow different UEs to be served by the network entity on the first RAT, as the claim language only has “one or more” UEs served by the network entity using the second RAT. Further, the details argued by Applicant with regard to Ramachandran are provided in Matthieu, where the rejection of claim 1 is based on Li in view of Matthieu and Ramachandran.
Accordingly, as Applicant has not actually addressed the combination of references, but rather has argued each reference in isolation of the other references, Applicant’s arguments cannot be deemed persuasive as one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, Applicant appears to be arguing a narrower scope than is required by the instant claim, where it is recommended that Applicant amend the instant claim to clearly include any details that Applicant regards as being required. Accordingly, the instant claims stand rejected for the reasons provided 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) 1-7 and 9-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0132425 (Li) in view of US 2016/0072670 (Matthieu) and WO 2023/161242 (Ramachandran).
With regard to claim 1, Li discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a network entity, the method comprising:
transmitting multimedia, security, surveillance (MSS) operational control signals to one or more MSS entities using the MSS interface of the network entity to fashion the MSS operation control signals with a communication protocol (Li: Paragraphs [0021], [0030]-[0032], and [0038] and Figures 2-4. Li discloses the sending of control commands.);
receiving MSS data from one or more of the MSS entities via the MSS interface (Li: Paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and Figures 2-3. Li discloses receiving data from devices.).
Li fails to disclose, but Matthieu teaches the MSS interface to fashion the MSS operation control signals with a communication protocol being compatible with a first radio access technology (RAT) of the one or more MSS entities and being incompatible with a second RAT of the network entity used to communicate with one or more user equipments (UEs) served by the network entity, the first RAT being different from the second RAT (Matthieu: Paragraph [0067]. Matthieu presents a gateway that can be used to connect devices that cannot connect to a LAN using different connections, such as Bluetooth, to a messaging system via a LAN.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the MSS interface configured to transmit operation signals from a first RAT to a second RAT with the protocol of the first RAT being incompatible with the second RAT to allow such devices on the different networks to connect and access services/information from devices of the other network, thus increasing the overall functionality of the system. As a note, the use of gateways, such as that of Matthieu, were very well-known in the art, where gateways provide for the connection of devices on different networks to each other, where the different networks would often use protocols incompatible with each other. Further, it is noted that the second RAT is not at all used in any of the instant claims other than reciting a capability of the MSS interface to transmit signals across the two RATs.
Li in view of Matthieu fail to teach, but Ramachandran teaches wherein the MSS operational control signals include enhanced positioning protocol signals that encapsulate network MSS interface protocol signals compatible with the one or more MSS entities (Ramachandran: Page 105, line 7 to Page 106, Line 28 and Page 39, lines 28 to 32. In Ramachandran, positioning protocols, such as LPP can be extended to allow for the encapsulation of additional information.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to allow for the encapsulation of the MSS operational control signal over signals of other protocols, such as an enhanced positioning protocol signal (the term “enhanced” would only require some enhancement, where the encapsulation of additional information would serve to enhance the protocol signal) to enable the communication of such operational control signals over interfaces that would not natively support such signals, such as an interface that supports LPP signals but not the MSS signals, where such functionality would avoid the need to establish different interfaces for communicating such signals.
With regard to claim 2, Li in view of Matthieu and Ramachandran teaches wherein the MSS interface includes an enhanced positioning protocol interface configured to encapsulate the network MSS interface protocol signals in the enhanced positioning protocol signals (Ramachandran: Page 105, line 7 to Page 106, Line 28 and Page 39, lines 28 to 32. The MSS signals would be encapsulated in the LPP signals, where such functionality would be performed by the interface that is forming and communicating the LPP signal.).
With regard to claim 3, Li teaches transmitting a discovery broadcast message using the MSS interface; and receiving a registration signal from the one or more MSS entities (Li: Paragraphs [0042]-[0044] and Figures 2-4. Li teaches broadcast message and receiving discovered devices.).
With regard to claim 4, Li teaches receiving a registration request from the one or more MSS entities; and transmitting a registration signal to the one or more MSS entities in response to the registration request (Li: Paragraphs [0021], [0030], [0032], and [0054] and Figures 2-4. Li teaches registration.).
With regard to claim 5, Li teaches wherein the MSS operational control signals include MSS entity configuration signals configuring a functional operation of the one or more MSS entities (Li: Paragraphs [0021], [0030]-[0032], and [0038] and Figures 2-4. Li teaches sending control commands).
With regard to claim 6, Li teaches wherein the MSS entity configuration signals includes reporting parameters that configure a reporting operation of the one or more MSS entities to the network entity (Li: Paragraphs [0031]-[0034] and Figure 2).
With regard to claim 7, Li teaches wherein the transmitting the MSS operational control signals includes: identifying a target group of MSS entities from the one or more MSS entities, wherein the target group of MSS entities includes each MSS entity of the one or more MSS entities satisfying a predefined criteria; and broadcasting the MSS operational control signals to the target group of MSS entities using the MSS interface to fashion the MSS operational control signal swith the communication protocol for the broadcasting (Li: Paragraphs [0042]-[0044]. Li teaches broadcasting signals to target group.).
With regard to claim 9, the instant claim is similar to claim 1, but from the perspective of the MSS entity instead of from the network entity, and is thus rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claim 10, Li receiving a discovery broadcast message from the network entity, the discovery broad cast message received in the communication protocol compatible with the MSS entity; and transmitting a registration signal to the network entity in response to the discovery broadcast message, the registration signal transmitted in the communication protocol compatible with the MSS entity (Li: Paragraphs [0042]-[0044] and Figures 2-4. Li teaches broadcast message and receiving discovered devices).
With regard to claim 11, Li teaches transmitting a registration request to the network entity, the registration request message transmitted in the communication protocol compatible with the MSS entity; and receiving a registration signal from the network entity, the registration signal received in the communication protocol compatible with the MSS entity (Li: Paragraphs [0021], [0030], [0032], and [0054] and Figures 2-4. Li teaches registration.).
With regard to claim 12, Li teaches wherein the MSS operational control signals include MSS entity configuration signals configuring a functional operation of the MSS entity (Li: Paragraphs [0021], [0030]-[0032], and [0038] and Figures 2-4. Li teaches sending control commands.).
With regard to claim 13, Li teaches wherein the MSS entity configuration signals includes reporting parameters that configure a reporting operation of the MSS entity to the network entity (Li: Paragraphs [0031]-[0034] and Figure 2).
With regard to claim 14, Li teaches wherein the MSS data includes capability data of the MSS entity (Li: Paragraphs 23, 28, 43. Li teaches capability going between device and server).
With regard to claims 15-22, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-8, and are rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claims 23-28, the instant claims are similar to claims 9-14, and are rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claim 29, Li in view of Matthieu teaches transmit, in response to the MSS data, one or more network control signals to one or more network nodes via a network communication protocol compatible with the second RAT (Matthieu: Paragraph [0014]. A response can be received and translated into the second protocol using the same gateway functionality.), the one or more network control signals including one or more of: location service information; and communication parameters selected in response to environmental conditions, in an environment in which the one or more network nodes are located, identified in the MSS data (Li: Paragraphs [0035] and [0067]. A request can be made for information based on a location, and is provided with information from the nearest device, which would constitute communication parameters selected in response to environmental conditions (Note that “environmental conditions” is rather broad, and can include any information about the environment, which can apparently include location.), in an environment in which the one or more network nodes are located, identified in the MSS data. As a note, the instant claim presents one or more of the two options, where Li teaches the communication parameters.).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights