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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12035355. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because for example both claim 1 in the instant application and claim 1 in the patent teaches {device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: identifying a requirement for mobile communication resources in a service area of a mobility network; determining the requirement for mobile communication resources exceeds currently available mobile communication resources of the mobility network for the service area; assessing current user status information for one or more users in the service area, forming a user assessment, wherein the assessing current user status information is based on the determining the requirement for mobile communication resources exceeds currently available mobile communication resources; performing a first assignment of an antenna beam of a beamforming antenna based on the user assessment}. The patent is different from the instant application, the patent teaches {receiving thermal information from an environmental sensor located in the service area; based on thermal information, identifying a mobile device having an elevated temperature; and assigning the antenna beam of the beamforming antenna to the mobile device having the elevated temperature), however, this limitation is taught in claim 9 in the instant application, therefore, combining claim 1 with claim 9 to obtain the patent.
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, 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupray (US 20070287473) in view of Amis (US 20140118140).
Regarding claim 1, Dupray teaches, a device, comprising: a processing system including a processor; and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processing system, facilitate performance of operations (Paragraph 57), the operations comprising:
identifying a requirement for mobile communication resources in a service area of a mobility network (Paragraph 566); determining the requirement for mobile communication resources exceeds currently available mobile communication resources of the mobility network for the service area (Paragraph 566);
assessing Current user status information for one or more users in the service area, forming a user assessment, wherein the assessing current user status information is based on the determining the requirement for mobile communication resources exceeds currently available mobile communication resources (Paragraph 566-568: user placing the emergency call); and assigning an antenna beam of a
beamforming antenna based on the user assessment (Paragraph 582- 583 and 230).
Dupray does not teach performing a second assignment of the antenna beam of the beamforming antenna to a mobile device having a predetermined set of prioritized factors, wherein the predetermined set of prioritized factors is specific to the mobile device.
Amis in the same art of endeavor teaches assignment of the antenna beam of the beamforming antenna to a mobile device having a predetermined set of prioritized factors, wherein the predetermined set of prioritized factors is specific to the mobile device { (Paragraph 150, 124, 48, 40), in Paragraph 40: The security assessment algorithm, named the Victor Algorithm, utilizes data from the user and user device, such as location coordinates, path and speed of travel, past movement history and patterns, temperature and sounds (i.e. irregular noises) from the user's surroundings, and images and video of the user's Surroundings. Furthermore, the Algorithm utilizes third-party
data such as crime statistics, traffic patterns (vehicle, aircraft, and human), crime cycles, weather patterns, gang-activity, etc. The Algorithm also utilizes in-house data such as user routines and behaviors, vulnerability of people and assets, and data from other users of the security network collected over time. All of this information is correlated to obtain a security assessment for the user and for response)}.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dupray with Amis in order to improve the system and provide more information that would help in providing better and timely assistance.
Regarding claim 2, Dupray in view of Amis teaches, wherein the assessing current user status information comprises: identifying a current public emergency situation affecting the service area; and identifying a current state of the current public emergency situation (Dupray Paragraph 566- 568).
Regarding claim 3, Dupray in view of Amis teaches, wherein the assessing current user status information comprises: receiving camera information for the service area; and identifying a current amount of stress of one or more users at the service area, wherein the identifying a current amount of stress is based on the camera information (Amis teaches system for threat assessment of individual and group (abstract), Amis teaches receiving camera information for the service area; and identifying a current amount of stress of one or more users at the service area, wherein the identifying a current amount of stress is based on the camera information (Col. 7, lines 29-35 and Col. 25, lines 35-5)).
Regarding claim 4, Dupray in view of Amis teaches, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving user information about at least one user of the one or more users in the service area; predicting a future action of the at least one user based on the user information; and assigning the antenna beam of the beamforming antenna based on the predicting a future action (Dupray Paragraph 31-33; location, movement direction).
Regarding claim 5, Dupray in view of Amis teaches, wherein the operations further comprise: receiving position information and movement information of the at least one user (Dupray: Paragraph 31-33); and predicting future action of the at least one user based on the position information and movement information (Dupray: Paragraph 31-33, 48).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Dupray (US 20070287473) in view of Amis (US 20140118140) in view of Stewart (US 20170285594).
Regarding claim 6, Dupray in view of Amis teaches,
receiving camera information including an image of at least one user of the one or more users in the service area; identifying, from the camera information, the at least one user as a user who should be given priority for available mobile communication resources; and assigning the antenna beam of the beamforming antenna based on the identifying (Paragraph 150, 124, 48, 40), in Paragraph 40: The security assessment algorithm, named the Victor Algorithm, utilizes data from the user and user device, such as location coordinates, path and speed of travel, past movement history and patterns, temperature and sounds (i.e. irregular noises) from the user's surroundings, and images and video of the user's Surroundings. Furthermore, the Algorithm utilizes third-party data such as crime statistics, traffic patterns (vehicle, aircraft, and human), crime cycles, weather patterns, gang-activity, etc. The Algorithm also utilizes in-house data such as user routines and behaviors, vulnerability of people and assets, and data from other users of the security network collected over time. All of this information is correlated to obtain a security assessment for the user and for response.
Dupray with Amis does not teach camera information including an image of at least one user of the one or more users in the service area; identifying, from the camera information, the at least one user as a user who should be given priority as claimed.
Stewart teaches the above limitation (Paragraph 53, 73).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dupray with Amis with Stewart in order to improve the system and provide timely assistance for those who most need it which will increase system’s reliability.
Regarding claim 7, Dupray in view of Amis in view of Stewart teaches, wherein the identifying the at least one user as a user who should be given priority comprises: identifying, from the camera information, a distressed situation involving the at least one user; and identifying, from the camera information, a distressed emotion of the at least one user (Stewart: Paragraph 53, 73 and see claim 6 explanation).
Regarding claim 8, Dupray in view of Amis in view of Stewart teaches, wherein the identifying the at least one user as a user who should be given priority comprises: identifying, from the camera information, a facial expression of the at least one user; and assigning the antenna beam of the beamforming antenna based on the facial expression (Stewart: Paragraph 53, 73 and see claim 6 explanation).
Claims 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being Unpatentable over Dupray (US 20070287473) in view of Amis (US 20140118140) in view of Smith (US 20160373935).
Regarding claim 10, Dupray in view of Amis teaches, the claimed operation (see claim 1).
Dupray in view of Amis does not teach wherein the operations further comprise: receiving registration information for a user, wherein the user is registered as a high-priority user; and assigning the antenna beam of the beamforming antenna to a mobile device the user registered as the high-priority user.
Smith teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving registration information for a user, wherein the user is registered as a high-priority user; and assigning the antenna beam of the beamforming antenna to a mobile device the user registered as the high-priority user (Paragraph 138,414).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dupray in view of Amis with Smith in order to improve the system and provide timely assistance for those who considered high priority which will increase system’s reliability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
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