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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/513428. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 in the instant application are exact word by word claims in the co-pending application 18/513428.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 include an acronym “MNO”, it is not clear and vague without explaining what the acronym is. Please ensure that each mention of the acronym in each claim that there is a meaning provided in parenthesis.
Claim 5 include an acronym “LPP”, it is not clear and vague without explaining what the acronym is. Please ensure that each mention of the acronym in each claim that there is a meaning provided in parenthesis.
Claim 14 include an acronym “IMD”, it is not clear and vague without explaining what the acronym is. Please ensure that each mention of the acronym in each claim that there is a meaning provided in parenthesis.
Claim 14 include an acronym “MOCN”, it is not clear and vague without explaining what the acronym is. Please ensure that each mention of the acronym in each claim that there is a meaning provided in parenthesis.
Claim 14 include an acronym “PCNN cell-ID”, it is not clear and vague without explaining what the acronym is. Please ensure that each mention of the acronym in each claim that there is a meaning provided in parenthesis.
Claim 14 include an acronym “PCNN TAI”, it is not clear and vague without explaining what the acronym is. Please ensure that each mention of the acronym in each claim that there is a meaning provided in parenthesis.
Claim 18 include an acronym “MME”, it is not clear and vague without explaining what the acronym is. Please ensure that each mention of the acronym in each claim that there is a meaning provided in parenthesis.
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.
Claims 1-3, 12, 15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 20220070623) in view of Tjandra (US 20200213831).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson teaches, a method (abstract: acquisition and exchange of location data with an emergency call center using a private cellular network and Fig. 9) comprising:
determining, based on a location component ((ESMLC, GMLC, Fig. 7; cell location DB, subscriber location DB, 822, Fig. 8), one or more particular UEs (User Equipment) that are communicating via a private network (abstract: A private cellular network includes a location engine configured to store specific location information of user equipment connected to the private cellular network via an access point and Paragraph 6 and Paragraph 118: with UE 708 connected to private cellular network 702 within such confined geographical location, information regarding exact location of UE 708 within the confined geographical location can be communicated to GMLC 720 and subsequently to PSAP 706 in order to allow first/emergency responders to determine the exact location of the emergency and attend to the emergency in a more efficient and faster manner); and
a subset of Access Points (APs) within the private network (Paragraph 69), the UE is connected to access point (Paragraph 120), the call request reaches edge core router 806 via access point 804, edge core router 806 determines whether the call request is an emergency call request (e.g. based on the format of the incoming call request defined for emergency call services (Paragraph 122),
Paragraph 141: determining that emergency call services are supported, edge core router 806 generates an emergency request message to be forwarded to emergency service network 815 via emergency enabled EPC 812 and IMS 814. The format of the emergency request message can be compatible with any type of known or to be developed protocol to be used in communications between edge core router 710 and MME 712 (e.g., using S1 interface).
Paragraph 155: a message is sent to UE 802 from edge core router 806 indicating the same, allowing UE 802 to find the nearest access point (which may not be an access point associated with the private cellular network) to route an emergency call request therethrough.
Nelson does not explicitly teaches directing an emergency message to a subset of Access Points (APs) within the private network based on the one or more particular UEs determined.
Tjandra discloses: (sending alert to the user devices through the private network 102-106, Fig. 1) based on the one or more particular UEs determined (based on an emergency call from a user) (Fig. 1-2, Par 0022- 0024, Par 0026-0029, Par 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Nelson by including the step to (ii) direct an emergency message to a subset of Access Points (APs) within the private network based on the one or more particular UEs determined, as taught by Tjandra for the purpose of enabling access to private networks to address emergencies occurred in the facilities covered by the private networks, as taught by Tjandra (Par 0001-0002).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Nelson with Tjandra in order to improve the system to identify the location of a UE making emergency call and direct an emergency message (alert) to a subset of Access Points (APs) within the private network based on the one or more particular UEs determined.
Regarding claim 2, Nelson in view of Tjandra teaches, wherein private network operates a Citizens Broadband Radio System (CBRS) network architecture (Tjandra Paragraph 22: private networks 102 through 106 may operate on a Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) frequency spectrum, Nelson Paragraph 69) and the location component comprises an Evolved Serving Mobile Location Center (E-SMLC) of an MNO ((E-SMLC) (E-SMLC, Nelson Paragraph 109-110, Fig. 7) of an MNO (Nelson Fig. 3-8, Paragraph 52-53).
Regarding claim 3, Nelson in view of Tjandra teaches, wherein the location component is located in the private network (Nelson: Paragraph 57, 6).
Regarding claim 12, Nelson in view of Tjandra teaches, comprising: a) receiving at an enterprise network, an emergency call from the UE (Nelson: abstract, Paragraph 24), and b) routing, by the enterprise network, the emergency call, based on a Location Service (LCS) client (Nelson: Paragraph 88).
Regarding claim 15, Nelson in view of Tjandra teaches, a) receiving an emergency message at the private network, the emergency message including a notification area (Nelson: Paragraph 136); b) matching, by the private network, cell sites with the notification area (Nelson: Paragraph 136-137); and c) broadcasting, by the private network, to the cell sites (Tjandra: Paragraph 22-24, 34).
Regarding claim 17, Regarding claim 12, Nelson in view of Tjandra teaches, a) establishing a roaming connection between the enterprise network and a Mobile Network Operators (MNO) network core (Nelson: Paragraph 52-54) and b) transferring authentication data between the enterprise network and the MNO network core (Nelson: Paragraph 78).
Regarding claim 19, Nelson in view of Tjandra teaches, the UE placing an emergency call, via a Mobile Network Operators (MNO) macro network (Nelson: Paragraph 52) and Location Based Service (LBS) function (Nelson: Paragraph 111) of an MNO network core, (Nelson: Paragraph 52-54) to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) (Nelson: Paragraph 101).
Regarding claim 20, see claim 1 rejection.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 20220070623) in view of Tjandra (US 20200213831) in view of Edge (US 20150350850).
Regarding claim 4, Nelson in view of Tjandra teaches, determining location information (see claim 1 rejection).
Nelson in view of Tjandra does not explicitly teach wherein determining comprises providing location information in response to requests made in accordance with Location Positioning Protocol (LPP).
Edge in the same art of endeavor teaches determining comprises providing location information in response to requests made in accordance with Location Positioning Protocol (LPP) (Paragraph 6: location information received from the first mobile device using the positioning protocol and Paragraph 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Nelson with Tjandra with Edge in order to improve the system to identify location using LPP so to improve accuracy and reliability and enhanced operational efficiency through real-time tracking and route optimization, increased productivity by streamlining workflows, and a better user experience.
Claims 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 20220070623) in view of Tjandra (US 20200213831) in view of Edge (US 20150350850) in view of Edge et al (US 20150365790).
Regarding claim 5, Nelson in view of Tjandra in view of Edge teaches, determining location information includes LPP (see claim 1 rejection).
Nelson in view of Tjandra does not explicitly teach wherein providing the location information includes LPP messaging, the LPP messaging being communicated on a secure tunnel that allows contents of communications to only be accessible to the UE and the network location component.
Edge et al teaches providing the location information includes LPP messaging, the LPP messaging being communicated on a secure tunnel that allows contents of communications to only be accessible to the UE and the network location component (Paragraph 23, 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Nelson with Tjandra with Edge with Edge et al in order to improve the system and provide location in a secure way.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 20220070623) in view of Tjandra (US 20200213831) in view of Lan et al (US 10499204).
Regarding claim 16, Nelson teaches that a private network establishes connection/interface with a plurality of MNOs and thus the devices in the private network are capable of receiving message from a plurality of MNOs (Fig. 1-4, Par 0052-0061, Par 0063, Par 0067-0074, Par 0088-0091).
Nelson does not explicitly disclose to a) receive a first emergency message from a first Mobile Network Operators (MNO) and a second emergency message from a second MNO, the second emergency message being a duplicate of the first emergency message; b) determine that the second emergency message is the duplicate of the first emergency message; and c) remove the second emergency message.
Lan teaches to a) receive a first emergency message from a second emergency message (currently received message and previously received message), the second emergency message being a duplicate of the first emergency message (currently received message is a duplicate message); b) determine that the second emergency message is the duplicate of the first emergency message (currently received message is a duplicate of a previous message); and c) remove the second emergency message (discard the message) (Col 2, Line 1- 38, Col 4, Line 40-67, Col 6, Line 37-67, Col 7, Line 1-8).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify Nelson by including the step to a) receive a first emergency message from, b) determine that the second emergency message is the duplicate of the first emergency message; and c) remove the second emergency message, for the purpose of efficiently handling the wireless emergency alert messages, as taught by Lan (Col 1, Line 62-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, and 7” for depending on 6”, 8 and 9-11 “for depending directly or indirectly on 8”, 13-14, 18, are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA EL-ZOOBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Carolyn Edward can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/MARIA EL-ZOOBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692