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 Construction - Claim interpretation
The claimed limitations have been reviewed in light of invoking 112(f) means plus function interpretations. Per review of MPEP 2181 and the interpreted understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art, the recitations of ‘electronic device’ are not interpreted by the Examiner as invoking a 112(f) means plus function interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar (US Pub 20210092796, see IDS).
Re claim 9, Kumar discloses a method of operating a terminal, the method comprising:
receiving an emergency alert message from a base station (Fig 12 el 1212-1222; Par 107-109, 140 -geotargeting performed by the CBC 1204 may include determining which BS 102 (or multiple BSs 102) should transmit the alert to UEs 106);
determining whether to display the emergency alert message on a screen (Fig 11; Par 109, 112, 114, 138, 140-142, 150) based on an emergency alert message display area included in the emergency alert message (Fig 11; Par 109, 112, 114, 138, 140-142, 150); and
determining whether to display the emergency alert message on the screen (Par 102-103, 109, 119-121, 139-142) by repeatedly receiving a trigger message from the base station (Par 102-103, 109, 119-121, 139-142),
wherein the base station transmits, to the terminal (Fig 12 el 1212-1222; Par 107-109, 140 -geotargeting performed by the CBC 1204 may include determining which BS 102 (or multiple BSs 102) should transmit the alert to UEs 106), the emergency alert message transmitted from an electronic device (Fig 12 WEA message from 1208 to 1202, step 1; Par 140-141) that has received an emergency alert message transmission request to the terminal (Fig 12 el 1212-1222; Par 107-109, 140 -geotargeting performed by the CBC 1204 may include determining which BS 102 (or multiple BSs 102) should transmit the alert to UEs 106), and
wherein the emergency alert message transmission request comprises geo-fence information (Par 109, 112, 114, 140-142), transmission period information of the trigger message (Par 109-111, 119-121, 140-141), and transmission number information of the trigger message (Par 109-111, 119-121, 140-141).
Re claim 10, Kumar discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the determining of whether to display the emergency alert message on a screen (Fig 11; Par 138, 150) based on an emergency alert message display area included in the emergency alert message comprises (Fig 11; Par 138, 150), when the terminal is located within an emergency alert message transmission area but not within an emergency alert message display area (Fig 11; Par 138, 150), not displaying the emergency alert message on the screen of the terminal (Fig 11; Par 138, 150).
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US Pub 20210092796, see IDS) in view of Daly (US Pub 20110081883) and Ballakur (herein after Ball) (US Pub 20150280845, see IDS).
Re claims 1 and 12, Kumar discloses a method of operating an electronic device and the associated electronic device comprising:
receive an emergency alert message transmission request from a communication element (Fig 12 WEA message from 1208 to 1202, step 1; Par 140-141);
in response to the emergency alert message transmission request (Fig 12 step 1 leading to step 3 and transmission of 1212; Par 139-140, 142), transmit, to a mobile communication network gateway (Fig 12 step 1 leading to step 3 and transmission of 1212; Par 139-140, 142), a request message for requesting a base station to transmit an emergency alert message to a terminal (Fig 12 el 1202/1214; Par 107-109, 140 -geotargeting performed by the CBC 1204 may include determining which BS 102 (or multiple BSs 102) should transmit the alert to UEs 106); and
transmit, to the mobile communication network gateway (Fig 12 el 1212-1222; Par 107-109, 140), a trigger request message for causing the base station to repeatedly transmit a trigger message to the terminal (Fig 12 el 1212-1222; Par 107-109, 140 -geotargeting performed by the CBC 1204 may include determining which BS 102 (or multiple BSs 102) should transmit the alert to UEs 106) to attempt to display the emergency alert message on a screen of the terminal (Par 102-103, 109, 139-142),
wherein the emergency alert message transmission request comprises geo-fence information (Par 109, 112, 114, 140-142), transmission period information of the trigger message (Par 109-111, 119-121, 140-141), and transmission number information of the trigger message (Par 109-111, 119-121, 140-141); however Kumar fails to explicitly disclose (1) wherein the electronic device comprises a memory; and a processor configured to perform functions; and (2) wherein the communication element the emergency alert message transmission request is received from is a server.
Regarding item (1) above, this design is however disclosed by Daly. Daly discloses wherein the electronic device (Fig 5, Par 38-42) comprises a memory (Fig 5, Par 38-42); and a processor configured to perform functions (Fig 5, Par 38-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Kumar in order to incorporate the device components embodiment of Daly based on the rationale of the use of known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance the application of processors and associated memory for computational purposes and performance of a claimed method design is understood and predictable to a level of generality in that it allows for the application of the design method in real life communication environments as well as provides the ability for integration and compatibility in existing communication environments.
Regarding item (2) above, this design is however disclosed by Ball. Ball discloses wherein the communication element (Par 44; Fig 2-3 el 310) the emergency alert message transmission request is received from is a server (Par 44; Fig 2-3 el 310).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Kumar in order to incorporate the server infrastructure of Ball based on the rationale of the use of known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance where alerts and alert contents can be saved or prestored and communicated as necessary, it would be obvious to allow for the use of typical communication elements in network design to provide the storage and organizational benefits needed to allow for efficient and effective emergency communications.
Re claims 6 and 17, the combined disclosure of Kumar, Daly and Ball as a whole discloses the method of claim 1 and the associated electronic device of claim 12, Kumar further discloses wherein the terminal does not display (Fig 11; Par 138, 150) the emergency alert message on the screen of the terminal (Fig 11; Par 138, 150), when the terminal is located within an emergency alert message transmission (Fig 11; Par 138, 150) area but not within an emergency alert message display area (Fig 11; Par 138, 150).
Re claims 8 and 19, the combined disclosure of Kumar, Daly and Ball as a whole discloses the method of claim 1 and the associated electronic device of claim 12, Kumar further discloses wherein the base station repeatedly transmits the trigger message to the terminal (Par 109-111, 119-121, 140-141) based on the transmission period information of the trigger message (Par 109-111, 119-121, 140-141) and the transmission number information of the trigger message (Par 109-111, 119-121, 140-141).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of South (US Pub 20150111524).
Re claim 11, Kumar discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the determining of whether to display the emergency alert message on the screen by repeatedly receiving a trigger message from the base station (Par 102-103, 109, 119-121, 139-142) comprises, when the emergency alert message is received (Fig 9; Par 108, 136, 138, 150), displaying the emergency alert message on the screen of the terminal when the terminal is located within the emergency alert message display area when the trigger message is received (Par 102-103, 109, 139-142); however Kumar fails to explicitly disclose wherein displaying the emergency alert even if the terminal is located within the emergency alert message transmission area but not within the emergency alert message display area.
This design is however disclosed by South. South discloses displaying the emergency alert even if the terminal is located within the emergency alert message transmission area but not within the emergency alert message display area (Fig 3; Par 54-56 – still receive alert outside of geofence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Kuma in order to incorporate the emergency communication of South based on the rationale of the use of known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance allowing for the alert to reach users outside of a dedicated or intended area where the emergency is considered most relevant allows for considerations and support to be provided through such elements as travel considerations and data gathering, while also allowing for users outside of the immediate area of concern to appropriately be aware of a react to emergency conditions, improving safety and the knowledge of conditions for the user.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar, Daly and Ball as applied to claims 6 and 17 above, and further in view of South (US Pub 20150111524).
Re claims 7 and 18, the combined disclosure of Kumar, Daly and Ball as a whole discloses the method of claim 6 and the associated electronic device of claim 17, Kumar further discloses wherein, when the emergency alert message is received (Fig 9; Par 108, 136 – false alarm/alert), the terminal displays the emergency alert message on the screen of the terminal when the terminal is located within the emergency alert message display area when the trigger message is received (Par 102-103, 109, 139-142); however Kumar fails to explicitly disclose wherein displaying the emergency alert even if the terminal is located within the emergency alert message transmission area but not within the emergency alert message display area.
This design is however disclosed by South. South discloses displaying the emergency alert even if the terminal is located within the emergency alert message transmission area but not within the emergency alert message display area (Fig 3; Par 54-56 – still receive alert outside of geofence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Kuma in order to incorporate the emergency communication of South based on the rationale of the use of known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance allowing for the alert to reach users outside of a dedicated or intended area where the emergency is considered most relevant allows for considerations and support to be provided through such elements as travel considerations and data gathering, while also allowing for users outside of the immediate area of concern to appropriately be aware of a react to emergency conditions, improving safety and the knowledge of conditions for the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5 and 13-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the above cited claims. Re claims 2 and 13 the prior art fails to disclose the specific conversion and message determination processing as specifically claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights