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 and recent amendments with respect to claims 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.
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.
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, 8, 14-16, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 20190246260) in view of McConnell (US 9179497).
Regarding claim 1, Edge teaches a system for providing network notification (abstract: efficiently providing wireless emergency alerts (WEA) to a mobile device. The techniques include broadcasting a warning message from a base station in a wireless network within a cell for the base station and including an interior cell or exterior cell indication and a geographic area description for an external cell), the system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable media storing computer-usable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (Fig. 1, el. 102 and Paragraph 33), cause the one or more processors to:
receive an indication of a triggering event (Paragraph 32-33: Alert messages originating from various sources (e.g., federal agencies, local EOCs, and state EOCs) may be provided to an alert aggregator 102. In some configurations, the alert aggregator 102 may authenticate the alert messages. Authentication may involve checking the authenticity of the alert message to confirm that the alert message was transmitted by an authorized source in order to prevent unauthorized sources (e.g., terrorist, hackers, hostile foreign states, etc.) from causing fraudulent alert messages to be disseminated to mobile devices using the WEA system 100. The alert aggregator 102 may provide the alert messages to the CMSP 104 (and possibly to other CMSPs not shown in FIG. 1), which is prepared to transmit alert messages to mobile devices accessing CMSP 104 via one or more network transmitters 106a-b (e.g. which may include cellular base stations and possibly other transmitters such as WiFi access points). In some configurations, the alert aggregator 102 may be administered by a governmental entity (e.g., a federal, state, local agencies); identify a location of the triggering event (Paragraph 33: e CMSP 104 may include one or more systems and/or personnel to determine or verify the severity of an emergency (referred to as “severity information”) as well as a geographic area associated with the emergency, which may also be provided by the alert aggregator 102. This geographic area may be referred to as the impacted area, impact area, target area or target geographic area, these terms being used synonymously herein);
create a distribution list of one or more network nodes within a predetermined distance of the location of the triggering event to receive a notification of the triggering event (Paragraph 43-45: decide in which cells (or in which tracking areas or emergency areas which may map to cells) an alert message needs to be broadcast based on the impact area. The CBCs 410 receive a description or definition of the impact area along with the alert message and a required frequency and duration of transmission for the alert message from the CMSP gateway 408 which in turn receives at least the description or definition of the impact area and the alert message from Federal alert gateway 404. The impact area may be defined as a polygon, ellipse, circle or some other 2-dimensional (or 3-dimensional) shape as exemplified previously. One role of the CBCs 410 may be to determine the wireless cells (or possibly the tracking areas or emergency areas), for radio access networks (RANs) attached to CMSP CN 406, which are within or at least partly within the impact area (e.g. as illustrated with respect to FIG. 3). The CBCs 410 may also determine a corresponding interior-exterior classification for each cell (or each tracking area or emergency area) based on the methods described herein. The CBCs 410 determine a list of cells (or tracking areas or emergency areas) and an interior or exterior classification for each cell (or each tracking area or emergency area), and send the alert message to one or more MMEs 414a-b and/or one or more AMFs 416 along with the list of cells (or tracking areas or emergency areas) and the corresponding interior/exterior classifications {list of cells nodes to receive the alert message”); and
communicate the notification to the one or more network nodes within the predetermined distance of the location of the triggering event (Paragraph 64: an alert gateway 612 (e.g. corresponding to Federal Alert Gateway 404 in FIG. 4) provides alert information to providers (i.e., CMSPs) that have elected to provide alert information to their subscribers. Providers may utilize various components (e.g., the CBE 610, the CBC 608, the MME 606, and/or the eNB 604) to transmit alert messages to the mobile devices (i.e., UEs 602) in a particular geographic area).
Edge does not teach receive, from one or more sensors, an indication of a triggering event, wherein the one or more sensors automatically detect the triggering event based on predetermined triggering event criteria detected by the one or more sensors; identify a location of the triggering event based on the indication received from the one or more sensors.
McConnell in the same art of endeavor teaches receive, from one or more sensors, an indication of a triggering event, wherein the one or more sensors automatically detect the triggering event based on predetermined triggering event criteria detected by the one or more sensors; identify a location of the triggering event based on the indication received from the one or more sensors and alert users in the vicinity (abstract: sensor system detects a trigger condition and responsively determines proximate wireless communication devices. The sensor system transfers indications of the trigger condition and the currently proximate wireless communication devices to the network server. The network server processes the device data, trigger condition, and proximate wireless communication devices to generate notice data indicating the trigger condition and to select at least one of the wireless communication devices for receipt of the notice data. The network server transfers the notice data to the selected wireless communication devices over the wireless communication network).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edge with McConnell in order to improve the system, enhance the results and increase reliability and convince.
Regarding claim 8, see claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 14, Edge in view of McConnell teaches, determining an area that is a second predetermined distance from the triggering event, wherein the second predetermined distance is further than the predetermined distance from the triggering event (Edge Paragraph 5: Determining that the mobile device is within the geographic area may include at least one of determining that the location estimate is within the geographic area, determining that the location estimate is within a threshold distance of and outside the geographic area, or determining that the location estimate is either within the geographic area or within the threshold distance of and outside the geographic area. The warning message may include the threshold distance).
Regarding claim 15, Edge in view of McConnell teaches, communicating a second notification to different set of one or more network nodes within a second predetermined distance from the triggering event (Edge Paragraph 5: include determining that the mobile device is outside the geographic area, periodically reobtaining a new location estimate for the mobile device, and determining whether the mobile device has moved inside the geographic area based on the new location estimate. The method may further include determining that the mobile device has moved inside the geographic area, and providing the content of the warning message to the user based on determining that the mobile device has moved inside the geographic area. Periodically reobtaining the new location estimate may include reobtaining the new location estimate following an occurrence of a trigger event, where the trigger event may include at least one of an expiration of a periodic interval, a determination of a movement of the mobile device by more than a threshold distance from a previous location for the mobile device, receiving a new broadcast of the warning message, or receiving a new broadcast of the warning message after expiration of a threshold time interval following obtaining a previous location estimate for the mobile device. The method may also include ceasing to reobtain the new location estimate following at least one of an expiration of a maximum duration, ceasing to receive a broadcast of the warning message or performing a cell change or a handover to a new cell. The exterior cell indication may include an inclusion of the definition of the geographic area in the warning message and the interior cell indication may comprise an exclusion of the definition of the geographic area in the warning message. The message identifier may include the interior or exterior cell indication. The base station may be an evolved Node B (eNB), a next generation eNB (ng-eNB) or a New Radio Node B (gNB)) and Paragraph 44: The CBCs 410 may also determine a corresponding interior-exterior classification for each cell (or each tracking area or emergency area) based on the methods described herein. The CBCs 410 determine a list of cells (or tracking areas or emergency areas) and an interior or exterior classification for each cell (or each tracking area or emergency area), and send the alert message to one or more MMEs 414a-b and/or one or more AMFs 416 along with the list of cells (or tracking areas or emergency areas) and the corresponding interior/exterior classifications).
Regarding claim 16, Edge in view of McConnell teaches, wherein the second notification to the different set of one or more network nodes within the second predetermined distance is communicated subsequent to the notification to the one or more network nodes within the predetermined distance of the location of the triggering event (Paragraph 48: A first alert message may be broadcast only in interior cells and may therefore be accompanied by a list of only the interior cells and may be transferred by a CBC 410 only to MMEs 414, AMFs 416 and (subsequently) to base stations (e.g. eNBs 422, ng-eNBs 432 and gNBs 434) which are associated with the list of interior cells. A definition of the target area may not be provided for the first alert message by a CBC 410 when transferring the first alert message to an MME 414 or AMF 416. And Paragraph 48: A second alert message may be broadcast only in exterior cells and may therefore be accompanied by a list of only the exterior cells and may be transferred by a CBC 410 only to MMEs 414, AMFs 416 and (subsequently) to base stations (e.g. eNBs 422, ng-eNBs 432 and gNBs 434) which are associated with the list of exterior cells. A definition of the target area may be provided for the second alert message by a CBC 410 when transferring the second alert message to an MME 414 or AMF 416. A base station (Edge: e.g. eNB 422, ng-eNB 432 or gNB 434) may therefore broadcast the second alert message with a definition of the target area).
Regarding claim 17, see claims 8, 14-16 rejections.
Regarding claim 18, Edge in view of McConnell teaches, wherein the triggering event is a natural disaster (Edge Paragraph 32: An alert message may be triggered by various types of emergencies, such as an earthquake, a tsunami, a flood, a tornado, a wildfire, an act of terrorism).
Claims 3-5, 10-11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 20190246260) in view of McConnell (US 9179497) in view of Chen (US 20160286629).
Regarding claim 3, Edge in view of McConnell teaches, sensors (see claim 1 rejection).
Edge in view of McConnell does not teach wherein the one or more sensors comprises an acoustic sensor.
Chen teaches, wherein the one or more sensors comprises an acoustic sensor (Chen: Paragraph 98: image sensor, acoustic sensor).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Edge in view of with Chen in order to receive alert from different type of sensors to allow a fast, direct and reliable availability of information regarding an event.
Regarding claim 4, Edge in view of McConnell in view of Chen teaches, wherein the one or more sensors comprises a camera sensor (Chen: Paragraph 132: camera sensor).
Regarding claim 5, Edge in view of McConnell in view of Chen teaches, wherein the one or more sensors comprises a weather sensor (Chen: Paragraph 203, 207: weather sensors).
Regarding claim 10, see claim 3 rejections.
Regarding claim 11, see claim 5 rejections.
Regarding claim 19, see claim 5 rejections.
Claims 6-7, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 20190246260) in view of McConnell (US 9179497) in view of Berry (US 20180276977).
Regarding claim 6, Edge in view of McConnell teaches the claimed notification (see claim 1 rejection).
Edge in view of McConnell does not teach wherein the notification comprises a recommended action.
Berry teaches in the same art of endeavor in a notification system (abstract), the notification comprises a recommended action (Paragraph 12: the manager and store associate receiving distinct instructions, the store intercom system may receive still further distinct instructions, such as an instruction to begin broadcasting a “shelter in place” notification, or an immediate evacuation notification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Edge with Berry so to transmit recommendation actions along with notification system to improve the system and enhance the capability and ensure maximus safety.
Regarding claim 7, Edge in view of McConnell in view of Berry teaches wherein the recommended action is to evacuate an area within the predetermined distance from the triggering event (Paragraph 18: the server can generate and develop instructions for evacuation from a building or area of the store. These evacuation instructions can include directions based on parts of the store (“Please move towards the entrance,” “Please move towards the garden section) or based on cardinal directions (“Please move to the North East wall”). Likewise, such instructions can provide codes, if determined to be necessary, so that the individual can access portions of a geographic area they may not otherwise be authorized to access. (“Please go to the Manager's Office and enter code 5512”). And Paragraph 19: a fire alarm were issued for the building, individuals may receive an alert on their smart phones instructing the individuals on where the nearest exit is located and to proceed to that exit immediately. A supervisor or other individual with an emergency supervisor role may, instead of receiving instructions to immediately evacuate, may receive instructions to confirm that the floor is clear before leaving. And Paragraph 33: the instructions can provide evacuation directions from the geographic area (i.e., a building) based on a current location of the individual receiving the instructions. Similarly, the instructions can include a web link to an Internet site, where the Internet site contains the instructions for the individual, including actions to be performed by the individual.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 6 rejections.
Regarding claim 13, see claim 7 rejections
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edge (US 20190246260) in view of McConnell in view of Lundy (US 20170059744).
Regarding claim 20, Edge in view of McConnell teaches alert second area (see claim 17 rejection).
Edge in view of McConnell does not teach wherein the second area is determined based on a predicted path of the triggering event.
Lundy in the same art of endeavor teaches in an event (abstract), the warned area is determined based on a predicted path of the triggering event (Paragraph 47: determining the path of the tornado event, the AMI application 115 can facilitate sending emergency alerts to electronic devices in a geographic area within a predefined distance from the predicted tornado path. In one embodiment, the AMI application 115 can communicate with computing devices associated with public safety officials, such as local or state officials, for authorization. After receiving approval, the AMI application 115 can communicate the emergency alert to wireless carriers providing service in the area. The wireless carriers can push the emergency alert to cell phone, smart phones, tablets, and other mobile devices. In another embodiment, the AMI application 115 can communicate with cable and telecommunication service providers. In this context, community residents and businesses could receive alerts via television prompts, automated telephone messages, or some other means available to service providers for emergency situations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Edge with Lundy in order to improve the system and achieve predictable and better results.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights