DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer et al. (US-20070036118-A1; hereinafter “SHAFFER”) in view of Sharma et al. (US-20160219628-A1; hereinafter “SHARMA”).
Regarding claim 1, SHAFFER teaches a method for providing a push-to-talk (PTT) service by a server (see SHAFFER, para. [0026-27], LMR, land mobile radio servers; fig. 2, IS 50, para. [0046-48]), the method comprising:
identifying a position related to an event (see SHAFFER, fig. 4, incident 213, para. [0063]; fig. 8, 602);
receiving a floor request from one or more of at least one user of a group for the PTT service (see SHAFFER, para. [0091]; request to t);
identifying a position of each of the at least one user (see SHAFFER, fig. 4, 212a-c, para. [0063,99], fig. 8, 604).
SHAFFER is silent to teaching that comprising:
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and any user of the at least one user is not less than a threshold, arranging a queue for a floor based on a distance between the identified position related to the event and the position of each of the at least one user, and allocating the floor to the at least one user based on the arranged queue for the floor after the current floor is released; and
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and a position of a first user of the at least one user is less than a threshold, revoking the current floor and allocating the floor to the first user.
In the same field of endeavor, SHARMA teaches a method comprising:
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and any user of the at least one user is not less than a threshold (SHARMA describes participants who are outside of a specific geo-fence (e.g., outside Area 1 or Area 2) or further away from a "point-of-interest," meaning their distance to the event is greater than or equal to a certain threshold radius. Because they are further away, they receive a lower "geo-centric modifier" or "geo-fence modifier" and generally cannot immediately preempt the current floor holder, para. 0054-56,61-67), arranging a queue for a floor based on a distance between the identified position related to the event and the position of each of the at least one user (SHARMA teaches that denied floor requests (which occur when a user's rank is too low due to being too far away) can "linger" and remain as active requests for a predetermined period or indefinitely. This pool of lingering requests constitutes a queue. The priority of participants in this "queue" is determined by their preemption rank, which SHARMA explicitly calculates using a "geo-centric modifier" that is an inverse function of how far away each participant is from the point-of-interest. Therefore, the "queue" of lingering requests is arranged based on the users' distances from the event, tables 3, 4, para. 0061-66,81), and allocating the floor to the at least one user based on the arranged queue for the floor after the current floor is released (SHARMA teaches that as time passes, the current floor-holding participant's rank diminishes due to a "temporal modifier" (preemption rank decay), or they may simply finish their talk spurt. Once the current floor holder's rank drops below the rank of a user with a lingering request, the server arbitrates the lingering requests and grants the floor to the participant with the highest preemption rank (i.e., the one with the best distance/geo-centric modifier), para. 0071,81-84); and
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and a position of a first user of the at least one user is less than a threshold, revoking the current floor and allocating the floor to the first user (SHARMA defines geographic boundaries, such as "geo-fences" having a set radius from a geographical point-of-reference (a threshold distance). When a participant moves inside this geo-fence area (their distance becomes less than the threshold), they receive a significant increase in their preemption rank via a "geo-fence modifier" or "geo-centric modifier". SHARMA explicitly illustrates that if a participant moves inside the designated area (distance < threshold) and requests the floor, their dynamically boosted preemption rank allows them to immediately outrank the current floor-holding participant. Because their rank is higher, the server grants the request, which preempts (revokes) the floor from the most recent floor-holding participant and allows the new participant to be heard (allocating the floor), para. 0054-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of SHAFFER and SHARMA. SHAFFER explicitly identifies the need to arbitrate floor control based on proximity to an incident. Because PTT endpoints are half-duplex devices where only one person can speak at a time, SHAFFER states that an interoperability system "may selectively provide floor control to an endpoint requesting to talk based on the distance of the endpoint to an incident or scene associated with a virtual talk group, particularly if more than one PTT endpoints is requesting to talk at the same time". SHAFFER proposes solving this by giving floor control to the requesting endpoint that is closest to the event.
SHARMA provides the specific algorithmic framework to execute SHAFFER's desired distance-based arbitration. While SHAFFER introduces the concept of granting the floor based on distance, SHARMA teaches a detailed preemption ranking system that uses "geo-centric modifiers". SHARMA calculates a participant's preemption rank using a geo-centric modifier that acts as an inverse function of how far away the participant is from a geographic point-of-interest. Furthermore, SHARMA teaches advanced arbitration techniques to handle denied requests, allowing them to "linger" actively so they can be granted later if the denied participant's rank (which is influenced by their location) overtakes the current floor holder's rank.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate SHARMA's dynamic geo-centric preemption ranking and lingering request logic into SHAFFER's virtual talk group system. Doing so would directly fulfill SHAFFER's explicit goal of systematically arbitrating simultaneous PTT floor requests based on the users' distances to an incident scene. By applying SHARMA's modifier calculations and lingering floor request rules, SHAFFER's system would be improved to seamlessly queue and grant floor control to the most relevant emergency responders as they navigate closer to an event.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of SHAFFER and SHARMA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one user initially has an identical priority for the floor (see SHARMA, fig. 2, M1 at t0, para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of SHAFFER and SHARMA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the floor request comprises information on the position of a user who has transmitted the floor request (see SHAFFER, fig. 7, 502, para. [0095]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of SHAFFER and SHARMA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the position of each of the at least one user is identified in response to receiving of the floor request from the at least one of the at least one user (see SHAFFER, fig. 7, 502, para. [0093-95]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of SHAFFER and SHARMA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein, based on the identified position related to the event corresponding to an area, a user positioned within the area among the at least one user has a priority for the floor higher than a priority of a user positioned outside the area (see SHARMA, para. [0054-55], fig. 3).
Regarding claim 11, SHAFFER teaches a server configured to provide a push-to-talk (PTT) service (see SHAFFER, para. [0026-27], LMR, land mobile radio servers; fig. 2, IS 50, para. [0046-48]), the server comprising:
memory storing instructions (see SHAFFER; fig. 2, IS 50, para. [0046-48]); and
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry operably coupled to the memory (see SHAFFER; fig. 2, IS 50, para. [0046-48]), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, individually and/or collectively, cause the server to perform operations comprising:
identifying a position related to an event (see SHAFFER, fig. 4, incident 213, para. [0063]; fig. 8, 602);
receiving a floor request from one or more of at least one user of a group for the PTT service (see SHAFFER, para. [0091]; request to t);
identifying a position of each of the at least one user (see SHAFFER, fig. 4, 212a-c, para. [0063,99], fig. 8, 604).
SHAFFER is silent to teaching that configured to perform:
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and any user of the at least one user is not less than a threshold, arranging a queue for a floor based on a distance between the identified position related to the event and the position of each of the at least one user, and allocating the floor to the at least one user based on the arranged queue for the floor after the current floor is released; and
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and a position of a first user of the at least one user is less than a threshold, revoking the current floor and allocating the floor to the first user.
In the same field of endeavor, SHARMA teaches a system configured to perform:
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and any user of the at least one user is not less than a threshold (SHARMA describes participants who are outside of a specific geo-fence (e.g., outside Area 1 or Area 2) or further away from a "point-of-interest," meaning their distance to the event is greater than or equal to a certain threshold radius. Because they are further away, they receive a lower "geo-centric modifier" or "geo-fence modifier" and generally cannot immediately preempt the current floor holder, para. 0054-56,61-67), arranging a queue for a floor based on a distance between the identified position related to the event and the position of each of the at least one user (SHARMA teaches that denied floor requests (which occur when a user's rank is too low due to being too far away) can "linger" and remain as active requests for a predetermined period or indefinitely. This pool of lingering requests constitutes a queue. The priority of participants in this "queue" is determined by their preemption rank, which SHARMA explicitly calculates using a "geo-centric modifier" that is an inverse function of how far away each participant is from the point-of-interest. Therefore, the "queue" of lingering requests is arranged based on the users' distances from the event, tables 3, 4, para. 0061-66,81), and allocating the floor to the at least one user based on the arranged queue for the floor after the current floor is released (SHARMA teaches that as time passes, the current floor-holding participant's rank diminishes due to a "temporal modifier" (preemption rank decay), or they may simply finish their talk spurt. Once the current floor holder's rank drops below the rank of a user with a lingering request, the server arbitrates the lingering requests and grants the floor to the participant with the highest preemption rank (i.e., the one with the best distance/geo-centric modifier), para. 0071,81-84); and
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and a position of a first user of the at least one user is less than a threshold, revoking the current floor and allocating the floor to the first user (SHARMA defines geographic boundaries, such as "geo-fences" having a set radius from a geographical point-of-reference (a threshold distance). When a participant moves inside this geo-fence area (their distance becomes less than the threshold), they receive a significant increase in their preemption rank via a "geo-fence modifier" or "geo-centric modifier". SHARMA explicitly illustrates that if a participant moves inside the designated area (distance < threshold) and requests the floor, their dynamically boosted preemption rank allows them to immediately outrank the current floor-holding participant. Because their rank is higher, the server grants the request, which preempts (revokes) the floor from the most recent floor-holding participant and allows the new participant to be heard (allocating the floor), para. 0054-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of SHAFFER and SHARMA. SHAFFER explicitly identifies the need to arbitrate floor control based on proximity to an incident. Because PTT endpoints are half-duplex devices where only one person can speak at a time, SHAFFER states that an interoperability system "may selectively provide floor control to an endpoint requesting to talk based on the distance of the endpoint to an incident or scene associated with a virtual talk group, particularly if more than one PTT endpoints is requesting to talk at the same time". SHAFFER proposes solving this by giving floor control to the requesting endpoint that is closest to the event.
SHARMA provides the specific algorithmic framework to execute SHAFFER's desired distance-based arbitration. While SHAFFER introduces the concept of granting the floor based on distance, SHARMA teaches a detailed preemption ranking system that uses "geo-centric modifiers". SHARMA calculates a participant's preemption rank using a geo-centric modifier that acts as an inverse function of how far away the participant is from a geographic point-of-interest. Furthermore, SHARMA teaches advanced arbitration techniques to handle denied requests, allowing them to "linger" actively so they can be granted later if the denied participant's rank (which is influenced by their location) overtakes the current floor holder's rank.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate SHARMA's dynamic geo-centric preemption ranking and lingering request logic into SHAFFER's virtual talk group system. Doing so would directly fulfill SHAFFER's explicit goal of systematically arbitrating simultaneous PTT floor requests based on the users' distances to an incident scene. By applying SHARMA's modifier calculations and lingering floor request rules, SHAFFER's system would be improved to seamlessly queue and grant floor control to the most relevant emergency responders as they navigate closer to an event.
Regarding claims 12, 15, and 19, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claims 2, 5 and 9, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, SHAFFER teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions, the instructions, when executed individually and/or collectively by at least one processor comprising a server configured to provide a push-to-talk (PTT) service, cause the server to perform operations, the at least one processor comprising processing circuitry and the operations comprising (see SHAFFER, para. [0026-27], LMR, land mobile radio servers; fig. 2, IS 50, para. [0046-48]):
identifying a position related to an event (see SHAFFER, fig. 4, incident 213, para. [0063]; fig. 8, 602);
receiving a floor request from one or more of at least one user of a group for the PTT service (see SHAFFER, para. [0091]; request to t);
identifying a position of each of the at least one user (see SHAFFER, fig. 4, 212a-c, para. [0063,99], fig. 8, 604).
SHAFFER is silent to teaching that configured to perform:
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and any user of the at least one user is not less than a threshold, arranging a queue for a floor based on a distance between the identified position related to the event and the position of each of the at least one user, and allocating the floor to the at least one user based on the arranged queue for the floor after the current floor is released; and
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and a position of a first user of the at least one user is less than a threshold, revoking the current floor and allocating the floor to the first user.
In the same field of endeavor, SHARMA teaches a system configured to perform:
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and any user of the at least one user is not less than a threshold (SHARMA describes participants who are outside of a specific geo-fence (e.g., outside Area 1 or Area 2) or further away from a "point-of-interest," meaning their distance to the event is greater than or equal to a certain threshold radius. Because they are further away, they receive a lower "geo-centric modifier" or "geo-fence modifier" and generally cannot immediately preempt the current floor holder, para. 0054-56,61-67), arranging a queue for a floor based on a distance between the identified position related to the event and the position of each of the at least one user (SHARMA teaches that denied floor requests (which occur when a user's rank is too low due to being too far away) can "linger" and remain as active requests for a predetermined period or indefinitely. This pool of lingering requests constitutes a queue. The priority of participants in this "queue" is determined by their preemption rank, which SHARMA explicitly calculates using a "geo-centric modifier" that is an inverse function of how far away each participant is from the point-of-interest. Therefore, the "queue" of lingering requests is arranged based on the users' distances from the event, tables 3, 4, para. 0061-66,81), and allocating the floor to the at least one user based on the arranged queue for the floor after the current floor is released (SHARMA teaches that as time passes, the current floor-holding participant's rank diminishes due to a "temporal modifier" (preemption rank decay), or they may simply finish their talk spurt. Once the current floor holder's rank drops below the rank of a user with a lingering request, the server arbitrates the lingering requests and grants the floor to the participant with the highest preemption rank (i.e., the one with the best distance/geo-centric modifier), para. 0071,81-84); and
when a distance between the identified position related to the event and a position of a first user of the at least one user is less than a threshold, revoking the current floor and allocating the floor to the first user (SHARMA defines geographic boundaries, such as "geo-fences" having a set radius from a geographical point-of-reference (a threshold distance). When a participant moves inside this geo-fence area (their distance becomes less than the threshold), they receive a significant increase in their preemption rank via a "geo-fence modifier" or "geo-centric modifier". SHARMA explicitly illustrates that if a participant moves inside the designated area (distance < threshold) and requests the floor, their dynamically boosted preemption rank allows them to immediately outrank the current floor-holding participant. Because their rank is higher, the server grants the request, which preempts (revokes) the floor from the most recent floor-holding participant and allows the new participant to be heard (allocating the floor), para. 0054-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of SHAFFER and SHARMA. SHAFFER explicitly identifies the need to arbitrate floor control based on proximity to an incident. Because PTT endpoints are half-duplex devices where only one person can speak at a time, SHAFFER states that an interoperability system "may selectively provide floor control to an endpoint requesting to talk based on the distance of the endpoint to an incident or scene associated with a virtual talk group, particularly if more than one PTT endpoints is requesting to talk at the same time". SHAFFER proposes solving this by giving floor control to the requesting endpoint that is closest to the event.
SHARMA provides the specific algorithmic framework to execute SHAFFER's desired distance-based arbitration. While SHAFFER introduces the concept of granting the floor based on distance, SHARMA teaches a detailed preemption ranking system that uses "geo-centric modifiers". SHARMA calculates a participant's preemption rank using a geo-centric modifier that acts as an inverse function of how far away the participant is from a geographic point-of-interest. Furthermore, SHARMA teaches advanced arbitration techniques to handle denied requests, allowing them to "linger" actively so they can be granted later if the denied participant's rank (which is influenced by their location) overtakes the current floor holder's rank.
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to integrate SHARMA's dynamic geo-centric preemption ranking and lingering request logic into SHAFFER's virtual talk group system. Doing so would directly fulfill SHAFFER's explicit goal of systematically arbitrating simultaneous PTT floor requests based on the users' distances to an incident scene. By applying SHARMA's modifier calculations and lingering floor request rules, SHAFFER's system would be improved to seamlessly queue and grant floor control to the most relevant emergency responders as they navigate closer to an event.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SHAFFER and SHARMA as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Plestid et al. (US-20060058052-A1; hereinafter “PLESTID”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of SHAFFER and SHARMA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the floor is allocated to a user closest to the identified position related to the event among the at least one user (see SHAFFER, para. [0091]).
The combination of SHAFFER and SHARMA is silent to teaching that further comprising identifying that an existing floor is released from a user having the existing floor in the group, wherein, based on identifying that the existing floor is released, the floor is allocated to a user.
In the same field of endeavor, PLESTID teaches a method comprising identifying that an existing floor is released from a user having the existing floor in the group, wherein, based on identifying that the existing floor is released, the floor is allocated to a user (see PLESTID, fig. 4, let talk button go 50, para. [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of SHAFFER and SHARMA with the teaching of PLESTID in order to improve half-duplex communication and PTT systems (see PLESTID, para. [0002-3]).
Regarding claim 16, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and 20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dong (2017/0303100) teaches MCPTT systems.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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 WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights