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
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 10721006, 11405119, 11956068. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed limitations are similar in scope with obvious wording variations.
Instant Application
US 10,721,006
Claim 1. A transmitting method executed by a transmitting apparatus for transmitting emergency alert information, the transmitting method comprising:
generating the emergency alert information; and
transmitting the emergency alert information as a signaling of broadcast service toward a broadcast area, wherein
when a location information is included in the emergency alert information, a target area of the emergency alert information is specified by the location information, the location information indicating a portion of the broadcast area, and
when the location information is not included in the emergency alert information, the target area is same as the broadcast area.
Claim 1. A transmission method, executed by a transmission device, for transmitting emergency alert information, the transmission method comprising: generating (i) a message of an emergency alert and (ii) a Uniform Resource Locator (URL) indicating a location of a detailed content of the emergency alert; including the message and the URL into emergency alert information; and transmitting the emergency alert information as a signaling of broadcast service toward a broadcast area, wherein the transmission method further comprises: including location information into the emergency alert information if a target area indicated by the location information is a portion of the broadcast area, and the emergency alert information does not include the location information if the target area is same as the broadcast area.
Note that the table above only compared the conflicting claim 1. However, the Applicant is advised that the other independent and dependent claims in instant application also have their conflicting claims in US 10721006 and thus are rejected on a similar fashion as that in the table above, resulting in a double patenting rejection to all claims in instant application.
Thus, this double patenting rejection is necessary to prevent unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees.
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 3 and 4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, it recites “when the emergency alert information does not include the location information, (a) determining whether a located area in which the receiving apparatus is located is included in the target area of the emergency information specified by the location information, and (b) presenting the emergency alert based on the emergency alert information when the located area is included in the target area (emphasis added).”
The claim limitation begins with stating alert information does not include location information, but the claim limitation then refers to a indicated location information, so the claim limitation contradicts itself. The examiner cannot determine whether the emergency alert information includes location information or not.
Per the logic understood by the Examiner the claim limitation should amend as follow:
when the emergency alert information [[does not include]] includes the location information, (a) determining whether a located area in which the receiving apparatus is located is included in the target area of the emergency information specified by the location information, and (b) presenting the emergency alert based on the emergency alert information when the located area is included in the target area.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reason as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schumacher (US 9232377).
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/2, Schumacher teaches A transmitting method executed by a transmitting apparatus ([Fig.1], base station 22 in wireless network 14) for transmitting emergency alert information ([Fig.2, step 56 and Col.7, lines 57-67], “wireless carrier network 14 may (1) broadcast the alert.”), the transmitting method comprising:
generating the emergency alert information ([Col.9, lines 55-67, “base stations 22a-b may be programmed to ... prepare the alert for broadcast.”); and
transmitting the emergency alert information as a signaling of broadcast service toward a broadcast area ([Col.8, lines 38-55], wireless carrier network 14 may broadcast an alert to a plurality of UEs.), wherein
when a location information is included in the emergency alert information ([Col.8, lines 1-15], The “broadcast” alert message may “include location data for at least a portion of the target geographic area.”), a target area of the emergency alert information is specified by the location information ([Col.8, lines 1-15 and Col.8, lines 37-55], “target geographic area” may be included in the broadcasted alert message. And [Col.6, lines 47-62], “this alert message may include data specifying a location of the target geographic area ... such as a set of latitude/longitude coordinates that define a polygon or a latitude/longitude coordinate and corresponding radius that define a circle ... FIG. 3 depicts one possible example of a target geographic area A1.”), the location information ([Col.8, lines 1-15 and Col.8, lines 37-55], “target geographic area”) indicating a portion of the broadcast area (([Col.7, lines 57-67], “wireless carrier network 14 may (1) broadcast the alert in the first coverage-area set ... and (2) broadcast the alert in the second coverage-area set.” And [Col.7, lines 1-10], the first coverage-area set includes sectors S1 and S3, and the second coverage-area set includes sectors S2, S4 and S6, so the broadcast areas includes sectors S1-S4 and S6.), and
when the location information is not included in the emergency alert information ([Col.8, lines 1-10], the broadcast alert message “will not include any location data for the target geographic area.”), the target area is same as the broadcast area ([Col.7, lines 56-67], “wireless carrier network 14 may (1) broadcast the alert in the first coverage-area set in a manner that directs a recipient device to output the alert regardless of the device's location.” And [Col.7, lines 1-10], the first coverage-area set includes sectors S1 and S3.).
Regarding claim(s) 3/4, Schumacher teaches A receiving method executed by a receiving apparatus for receiving emergency alert information ([Fig.2, step 56 and Col.7, lines 57-67], “wireless carrier network 14 may (1) broadcast the alert” to UEs), the receiving method comprising:
receiving the emergency alert information as a signaling of broadcast service ([Col.8, lines 38-55], wireless carrier network 14 may broadcast an alert to a plurality of UEs.);
determining whether or not the emergency alert information includes location information, the location information indicating a portion of a broadcast area ([Col.8, lines 38-55], “the wireless carrier network's broadcasts may define the directive for outputting the alert based on whether or not the broadcasts include a flag that directs a recipient device to determine whether its location is encompassed within the target geographic area.”);
(i) when the emergency alert information does not include the location information, presenting an emergency alert based on the emergency alert information ([Col.8, lines 38-55], “the broadcast that directs a recipient device to output the alert regardless of the device's location will not include a flag that directs a recipient device to determine whether its location is encompassed within the target geographic area (e.g., the flag will not be set).”; and
(ii) when the emergency alert information does not include the location information, (a) determining whether a located area in which the receiving apparatus is located is included in the target area of the emergency information specified by the location information, and (b) presenting the emergency alert based on the emergency alert information when the located area is included in the target area ([Col.8, lines 35-55], “the broadcast that directs a recipient device to output the alert only if the device's location is encompassed within the target geographic area will include a flag that directs a recipient device to determine whether its location is encompassed within the target geographic area (e.g., the flag will be set).”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411