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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable
presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
Claim limitations of claim 1 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… subscribing”;
“processing system… detecting”;
“processing system… generating”;
“processing system… identifying”;
“processing system… classifying”; and
“processing system… causing”.
Claim limitations of claim 8 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… to subscribe”;
“processing system… to detect”;
“processing system… to generate”;
“processing system… identify”;
“processing system… classifying”; and
“processing system… cause”.
Claim limitations of claim 10 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… to generate”
Claim limitations of claim 11 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… to cause”
Claim limitations of claim 13 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… to use”
Claim limitations of claim 14 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… to identify”;
“processing system… to analyze”;
“processing system… to interrupt”; and
“processing system…to send”
Claim limitations of claim 15 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… to perform”
Claim limitations of claim 17 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… to perform”
Claim limitations of claim 18 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… to perform”
Claim limitations of claim 20 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… to perform”
Claim limitations of claim 21 have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language:
“processing system… to perform”.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1, 8, 10, 11, 13-15, 17, 18, 20, and 21 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding claim 1, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… subscribing” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]);
“processing system… detecting” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]);
“processing system… generating” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]);
“processing system… identifying” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]);
“processing system… classifying” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]); and
“processing system… causing” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claim 8, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… to subscribe” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]);
“processing system… to detect” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]);
“processing system… to generate” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]);
“processing system… identify” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]);
“processing system… classifying” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]); and
“processing system… to cause” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claim 10, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… to generate” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claim 11, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… to cause” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claim 13, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… to use” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claim 14, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… to identify” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]);
“processing system… to analyze” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]);
“processing system… to interrupt”; in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]); and
“processing system…to send”, in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claim 15, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… to perform” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claim 17, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… to perform” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claim 18, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… to perform” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claim 20, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… to perform” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
Regarding claim 21, a review of the specification shows that there is
corresponding structure for:
“processing system… to perform” in the form of “The term “processing system” may be used herein to refer to one or more processors” ([paragraph 0018]), described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
If Applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the Examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, Applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office Action.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sennett et al. (US 20090247111 A1), hereinafter Sennett, in view of WATANABE et al (US 20190349648 A1) hereinafter WATANABE.
Regarding claim 1, Sennett discloses a method for delivering emergency alerts to users engaged in immersive entertainment experiences, the method comprising:
subscribing, by a processing system in a service provider network, to established emergency broadcast systems to receive real-time alerts from sources, ((FIG. 5), [0038]- [0040], [0039] “registration information provided (step 74) by the HLR 68 to the emergency alert server 18 comprises a subscriber ID, such as the subscriber's directory number for example, and an indication of the geographic area in which the subscriber registered, such as the MSC (e.g., cell site). The Emergency Alert Server 18 maintains a list of registered subscribers who want to receive alert messages via SMS. The Emergency Alert Server 18 also maintains a list of the MSCs currently associated with each registered subscriber who wants to receive alerts via SMS”, [0041] “At step 76, an Emergency Alert Network 20 provides to the emergency alert server 18 an alert message and an indication of an alert area. At this point, the mobile device 12 is registered with the MSC 64. The emergency alert server 18, upon receipt (step 76) of the alert message from the Emergency Alert Network 20, determines cell sites within the alert area, as described above with reference to FIG. 1. The emergency alert server can then send individual emergency alerts to all devices registered with MSC's corresponding to identified cell sites, or can broadcast emergency alerts from the applicable cell sites to reach any and all devices regardless of whether the device is registered”);
detecting, by the processing system, a new emergency alert from the subscribed emergency broadcast systems, ([0041] “At step 76, an Emergency Alert Network 20 provides to the emergency alert server 18 an alert message and an indication of an alert area. At this point, the mobile device 12 is registered with the MSC 64. The emergency alert server 18, upon receipt (step 76) of the alert message from the Emergency Alert Network 20, determines cell sites within the alert area, as described above with reference to FIG. 1. The emergency alert server can then send individual emergency alerts (equivalent to “new emergency alert”) to all devices registered with MSC's (equivalent to “detecting, by the processing system”) corresponding to identified cell sites, […]”);
generating, by the processing system, an alert event based on the detected emergency alert for gateway devices within an affected area, ([0004] “In order for an EAS to function on a broader scale, however, it is desirable to broadcast emergency alerts to all mobile devices in a geographical area affected by an emergency condition, rather than simply send emergency alerts to a list of opt-in subscribers as in the example above. [0023] broadcast of an emergency alert begins at step 26, when an Emergency Alert Network 20, e.g., a computer affiliated with a government EAS, provides to an emergency alert server 18 an emergency alert, and the information is correspondingly received at emergency alert server 18. Information regarding an applicable geographic region affected by an emergency condition may also be provided in step 26”);
identifying, by the processing system, client devices connected to the service provider network, ([0029] [0030] [0041] “At step 76, an Emergency Alert Network 20 provides to the emergency alert server 18 an alert message and an indication of an alert area. At this point, the mobile device 12 is registered with the MSC 64” [0040] “Each time a mobile device 12 registers with an MSC 64 (the device 12 registering with the MSC 64, is equivalent to “the processing system, identifying “client devices “), steps 70, 72, and 74, are performed, and the lists maintained by the emergency alert server 18 are updated. Thus, if a subscriber registers with a first MSC 64 and later registers with a different MSC 64, the emergency alert server 18 updates the information stored therein pertaining to the subscriber, including an identification of the different MSC 64 […]”); and
classifying them as immersive or non-immersive based on at least one of hardware identification, analysis of protocol, and analysis of traffic patterns, ([0029] “At step 36, a second plurality of mobile devices can be identified who are in said geographical region affected by the emergency, and are currently registered as in communication via a connection to the internet, i.e., via Internet Protocol (IP) communications”).
However, Sennett does not disclose and causing, by the processing system, the identified immersive client devices to interrupt ongoing immersive activities and display the emergency alert within an immersive environment of the identified immersive client devices by sending the generated alert event from the processing system to the identified immersive client devices.
In the same field of endeavor, WATANABE discloses, and causing, by the processing system, the identified immersive client devices to interrupt ongoing immersive activities, ([0119] [0147] “when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of a video, the interruption image 111 displayed in emergency is distributed to the client devices and the display 39 instead of continuing to distribute the video”),
and display the emergency alert within an immersive environment of the identified immersive client devices by sending the generated alert event from the processing system to the identified immersive client devices, ([0119] “interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device. Upon receipt of the control signal, the client device that received the control signal may perform a process to superimpose the interruption image 111 on the video being played or a process to display the interruption image 111 instead of the video being played”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) to integrate the unit 41a disclosed by WATANABE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit and display the interruption image in the immersive environment, WATANABE ([0119]).
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Sennett further discloses wherein the source is a reliable authoritative source that provides accurate real-time alerts, ([0008] “a wireless access point, such as may be used at a Wi-Fi access point, that can distribute emergency alerts to any devices in communication with such access point. Such an access point may comprise, [..] an internet interface for sending and receiving communications via Internet Protocol (IP), a Short Message Service (SMS) emergency alert authentication component that authenticates an emergency alert received via said internet interface, a wireless communications mechanism that sends and receives communications to and from mobile devices, and an emergency alert distribution component that distributes said SMS emergency alert to all mobile devices in communication with said Wi-Fi access point (provided that the “Wi-Fi access point” comprises a component that authenticates emergency alert, and the alert distribution component which distributes emergency alert, the “Wi-Fi access point” is a reliable authoritative source, and provides real-time alerts). ” [0035] the Wi-Fi access point 400 scans all communications received via said internet interface 401 for an emergency alert identifier. The emergency alert authentication component 405 authenticates said SMS emergency alert by matching a received emergency alert identifier with an identifier 407 stored in said Wi-Fi access point 400. [0036] Once an alert is authenticated, it must be distributed to mobile devices 410-412”).
Regarding claim 8, Sennett discloses a computing device, comprising: a processing system configured to: subscribe to established emergency broadcast systems to receive real-time alerts from sources, ((FIG. 5), [0038]- [0040], [0039] “registration information provided (step 74) by the HLR 68 to the emergency alert server 18 comprises a subscriber ID, such as the subscriber's directory number for example, and an indication of the geographic area in which the subscriber registered, such as the MSC (e.g., cell site). The Emergency Alert Server 18 maintains a list of registered subscribers who want to receive alert messages via SMS. The Emergency Alert Server 18 also maintains a list of the MSCs currently associated with each registered subscriber who wants to receive alerts via SMS”, [0041] “At step 76, an Emergency Alert Network 20 provides to the emergency alert server 18 an alert message and an indication of an alert area. At this point, the mobile device 12 is registered with the MSC 64. The emergency alert server 18, upon receipt (step 76) of the alert message from the Emergency Alert Network 20, determines cell sites within the alert area, as described above with reference to FIG. 1. The emergency alert server can then send individual emergency alerts to all devices registered with MSC's corresponding to identified cell sites, or can broadcast emergency alerts from the applicable cell sites to reach any and all devices regardless of whether the device is registered”);
detect a new emergency alert from the subscribed emergency broadcast systems, ([0041] “At step 76, an Emergency Alert Network 20 provides to the emergency alert server 18 an alert message and an indication of an alert area. At this point, the mobile device 12 is registered with the MSC 64. The emergency alert server 18, upon receipt (step 76) of the alert message from the Emergency Alert Network 20, determines cell sites within the alert area, as described above with reference to FIG. 1. The emergency alert server can then send individual emergency alerts (equivalent to “new emergency alert”) to all devices registered with MSC's (equivalent to “detecting, by the processing system”) corresponding to identified cell sites, […]”);
generate an alert event based on the detected emergency alert for gateway devices within an affected area, ([0004] “In order for an EAS to function on a broader scale, however, it is desirable to broadcast emergency alerts to all mobile devices in a geographical area affected by an emergency condition, rather than simply send emergency alerts to a list of opt-in subscribers as in the example above. [0023] broadcast of an emergency alert begins at step 26, when an Emergency Alert Network 20, e.g., a computer affiliated with a government EAS, provides to an emergency alert server 18 an emergency alert, and the information is correspondingly received at emergency alert server 18. Information regarding an applicable geographic region affected by an emergency condition may also be provided in step 26”);
identify client devices connected to a service provider network, ([0029] [0030] [0041] “At step 76, an Emergency Alert Network 20 provides to the emergency alert server 18 an alert message and an indication of an alert area. At this point, the mobile device 12 is registered with the MSC 64” [0040] “Each time a mobile device 12 registers with an MSC 64 (the device 12 registering with the MSC 64, is equivalent to “the processing system, identifying “client devices “), steps 70, 72, and 74, are performed, and the lists maintained by the emergency alert server 18 are updated. Thus, if a subscriber registers with a first MSC 64 and later registers with a different MSC 64, the emergency alert server 18 updates the information stored therein pertaining to the subscriber, including an identification of the different MSC 64 […]”),and
classifying them as immersive or non-immersive based on at least one of hardware identification, analysis of protocol, and analysis of traffic patterns, ([0029] “At step 36, a second plurality of mobile devices can be identified who are in said geographical region affected by the emergency, and are currently registered as in communication via a connection to the internet, i.e., via Internet Protocol (IP) communications”).
However, Sennett does not disclose, and cause the identified immersive client devices to interrupt ongoing immersive activities and display the emergency alert within an immersive environment of the identified immersive client devices by sending the generated alert event from the processing system to the identified immersive client devices.
In the same field of endeavor, WATANABE discloses, and cause the identified immersive client devices to interrupt ongoing immersive activities, ([0119] [0147] “when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of a video, the interruption image 111 displayed in emergency is distributed to the client devices and the display 39 instead of continuing to distribute the video”) and
display the emergency alert within an immersive environment of the identified immersive client devices by sending the generated alert event from the processing system to the identified immersive client devices, ([0119] “interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device. Upon receipt of the control signal, the client device that received the control signal may perform a process to superimpose the interruption image 111 on the video being played or a process to display the interruption image 111 instead of the video being played”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) to integrate the unit 41a disclosed by WATANABE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit and display the interruption image in the immersive environment, WATANABE ([0119]).
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 8 above, Sennett further discloses wherein the source is a reliable authoritative source that provides accurate real-time alerts, ([0008] “a wireless access point, such as may be used at a Wi-Fi access point, that can distribute emergency alerts to any devices in communication with such access point. Such an access point may comprise, [..] an internet interface for sending and receiving communications via Internet Protocol (IP), a Short Message Service (SMS) emergency alert authentication component that authenticates an emergency alert received via said internet interface, a wireless communications mechanism that sends and receives communications to and from mobile devices, and an emergency alert distribution component that distributes said SMS emergency alert to all mobile devices in communication with said Wi-Fi access point (provided that the “Wi-Fi access point” comprises a component that authenticates emergency alert, and the alert distribution component which distributes emergency alert, the “Wi-Fi access point” is a reliable authoritative source, and provides real-time alerts). ” [0035] the Wi-Fi access point 400 scans all communications received via said internet interface 401 for an emergency alert identifier. The emergency alert authentication component 405 authenticates said SMS emergency alert by matching a received emergency alert identifier with an identifier 407 stored in said Wi-Fi access point 400. [0036] Once an alert is authenticated, it must be distributed to mobile devices 410-412”).
Regarding claim 15, Sennett discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage ((FIG. 6: memory portion 110), [0042]) medium having stored thereon processor-executable software instructions ((FIG. 6: processor portion 108), [0042]) configured to cause a processing system to perform operations for delivering emergency alerts to users engaged in immersive entertainment experiences, the operations comprising: subscribing to established emergency broadcast systems to receive real-time alerts from sources, ((FIG. 5), [0038]- [0040], [0039] “registration information provided (step 74) by the HLR 68 to the emergency alert server 18 comprises a subscriber ID, such as the subscriber's directory number for example, and an indication of the geographic area in which the subscriber registered, such as the MSC (e.g., cell site). The Emergency Alert Server 18 maintains a list of registered subscribers who want to receive alert messages via SMS. The Emergency Alert Server 18 also maintains a list of the MSCs currently associated with each registered subscriber who wants to receive alerts via SMS”, [0041] “At step 76, an Emergency Alert Network 20 provides to the emergency alert server 18 an alert message and an indication of an alert area. At this point, the mobile device 12 is registered with the MSC 64. The emergency alert server 18, upon receipt (step 76) of the alert message from the Emergency Alert Network 20, determines cell sites within the alert area, as described above with reference to FIG. 1. The emergency alert server can then send individual emergency alerts to all devices registered with MSC's corresponding to identified cell sites, or can broadcast emergency alerts from the applicable cell sites to reach any and all devices regardless of whether the device is registered”);
detecting a new emergency alert from the subscribed emergency broadcast systems, ([0041] “At step 76, an Emergency Alert Network 20 provides to the emergency alert server 18 an alert message and an indication of an alert area. At this point, the mobile device 12 is registered with the MSC 64. The emergency alert server 18, upon receipt (step 76) of the alert message from the Emergency Alert Network 20, determines cell sites within the alert area, as described above with reference to FIG. 1. The emergency alert server can then send individual emergency alerts (equivalent to “new emergency alert”) to all devices registered with MSC's (equivalent to “detecting, by the processing system”) corresponding to identified cell sites, […]”);
generating an alert event based on the detected emergency alert for gateway devices within an affected area, ([0004] “In order for an EAS to function on a broader scale, however, it is desirable to broadcast emergency alerts to all mobile devices in a geographical area affected by an emergency condition, rather than simply send emergency alerts to a list of opt-in subscribers as in the example above. [0023] broadcast of an emergency alert begins at step 26, when an Emergency Alert Network 20, e.g., a computer affiliated with a government EAS, provides to an emergency alert server 18 an emergency alert, and the information is correspondingly received at emergency alert server 18. Information regarding an applicable geographic region affected by an emergency condition may also be provided in step 26”);
identifying client devices connected to a service provider network, ([0029] [0030] [0041] “At step 76, an Emergency Alert Network 20 provides to the emergency alert server 18 an alert message and an indication of an alert area. At this point, the mobile device 12 is registered with the MSC 64” [0040] “Each time a mobile device 12 registers with an MSC 64 (the device 12 registering with the MSC 64, is equivalent to “the processing system, identifying “client devices”), steps 70, 72, and 74, are performed, and the lists maintained by the emergency alert server 18 are updated. Thus, if a subscriber registers with a first MSC 64 and later registers with a different MSC 64, the emergency alert server 18 updates the information stored therein pertaining to the subscriber, including an identification of the different MSC 64 […]”), and
classifying them as immersive or non-immersive based on at least one of hardware identification, analysis of protocol, and analysis of traffic patterns, ([0029] “At step 36, a second plurality of mobile devices can be identified who are in said geographical region affected by the emergency, and are currently registered as in communication via a connection to the internet, i.e., via Internet Protocol (IP) communications”).
However, Sennett does not disclose, and causing the identified immersive client devices to interrupt ongoing immersive activities and display the emergency alert within an immersive environment of the identified immersive client devices by sending the generated alert event from the processor to the identified immersive client devices.
In the same field of endeavor, WATANABE discloses, and causing the identified immersive client devices to interrupt ongoing immersive activities, ([0119] [0147] “when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of a video, the interruption image 111 displayed in emergency is distributed to the client devices and the display 39 instead of continuing to distribute the video”), and
display the emergency alert within an immersive environment of the identified immersive client devices by sending the generated alert event from the processor to the identified immersive client devices, ([0119] “interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device. Upon receipt of the control signal, the client device that received the control signal may perform a process to superimpose the interruption image 111 on the video being played or a process to display the interruption image 111 instead of the video being played”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) to integrate the unit 41a disclosed by WATANABE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit and display the interruption image in the immersive environment, WATANABE ([0119]).
Regarding claim 16, as applied to claim 15 above, Sennett further discloses
wherein the source is a reliable authoritative source that provides accurate real-time alerts, ([0008] “a wireless access point, such as may be used at a Wi-Fi access point, that can distribute emergency alerts to any devices in communication with such access point. Such an access point may comprise, [..] an internet interface for sending and receiving communications via Internet Protocol (IP), a Short Message Service (SMS) emergency alert authentication component that authenticates an emergency alert received via said internet interface, a wireless communications mechanism that sends and receives communications to and from mobile devices, and an emergency alert distribution component that distributes said SMS emergency alert to all mobile devices in communication with said Wi-Fi access point (provided that the “Wi-Fi access point” comprises a component that authenticates emergency alert, and the alert distribution component which distributes emergency alert, the “Wi-Fi access point” is a reliable authoritative source, and provides real-time alerts). ” [0035] the Wi-Fi access point 400 scans all communications received via said internet interface 401 for an emergency alert identifier. The emergency alert authentication component 405 authenticates said SMS emergency alert by matching a received emergency alert identifier with an identifier 407 stored in said Wi-Fi access point 400. [0036] Once an alert is authenticated, it must be distributed to mobile devices 410-412”).
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sennett et al. (US 20090247111 A1), hereinafter Sennett, in view of WATANABE et al (US 20190349648 A1) hereinafter WATANABE, further in view of EDGE (US 20250240604 A1), hereinafter EDGE.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose wherein generating the alert event based on the detected emergency alert for gateway devices within the affected area comprises: localizing the alert event based on a geographic area specified in the detected emergency alert; and tailoring the alert to a specific type and severity of the emergency.
In the same field of endeavor, EDGE discloses wherein generating the alert event based on the detected emergency alert for gateway devices within the affected area comprises: (“[0083] A provider may utilize various components of the CMSP 304 network to generate and transmit an alert message to UEs within the target geographic area (or within a portion of the target geographic area served by CMSP 304)”,
localizing the alert event based on a geographic area specified in the detected emergency alert; and tailoring the alert to a specific type and severity of the emergency, (“[0083] The CMSP 304 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,[…]”; [0083] the CMSP 304 may verify that a notification received from the alert aggregator 302 regarding a potential tornado touch down has a high severity, and that the corresponding impacted area (e.g., the predicted tornado touch down area)includes areas covered by the CMSP 304 network resources such as the transmitters 306a-b”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to integrate the CMSP 304 network disclosed by EDGE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to verify the severity of the emergency and the corresponding impacted area, EDGE ([0083]).
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 8 above, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose wherein the processing system is configured to generate the alert event based on the detected emergency alert for gateway devices within the affected area by: localizing the alert event based on a geographic area specified in the detected emergency alert; and tailoring the alert to a specific type and severity of the emergency.
In the same field of endeavor, EDGE discloses wherein the processing system is configured to generate the alert event based on the detected emergency alert for gateway devices within the affected area by: (“[0083] A provider may utilize various components of the CMSP 304 network to generate and transmit an alert message to UEs within the target geographic area (or within a portion of the target geographic area served by CMSP 304)”,
localizing the alert event based on a geographic area specified in the detected emergency alert; and tailoring the alert to a specific type and severity of the emergency, (“[0083] The CMSP 304 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,[…]”; [0083] the CMSP 304 may verify that a notification received from the alert aggregator 302 regarding a potential tornado touch down has a high severity, and that the corresponding impacted area (e.g., the predicted tornado touch down area)includes areas covered by the CMSP 304 network resources such as the transmitters 306a-b”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to integrate the CMSP 304 network disclosed by EDGE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to verify the severity of the emergency and the corresponding impacted area, EDGE ([0083]).
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 15 above, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose wherein the stored processor-executable software instructions are configured to cause a processing system to perform operations such that generating the alert event based on the detected emergency alert for gateway devices within the affected area comprises: localizing the alert event based on a geographic area specified in the detected emergency alert; and tailoring the alert to a specific type and severity of the emergency.
In the same field of endeavor, EDGE discloses wherein the stored processor-executable software instructions are configured to cause a processing system to perform operations such that generating the alert event based on the detected emergency alert for gateway devices within the affected area comprises: (“[0083] A provider may utilize various components of the CMSP 304 network to generate and transmit an alert message to UEs within the target geographic area (or within a portion of the target geographic area served by CMSP 304)”,
localizing the alert event based on a geographic area specified in the detected emergency alert; and tailoring the alert to a specific type and severity of the emergency, (“[0083] The CMSP 304 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,[…]”; [0083] the CMSP 304 may verify that a notification received from the alert aggregator 302 regarding a potential tornado touch down has a high severity, and that the corresponding impacted area (e.g., the predicted tornado touch down area)includes areas covered by the CMSP 304 network resources such as the transmitters 306a-b”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to integrate the CMSP 304 network disclosed by EDGE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to verify the severity of the emergency and the corresponding impacted area, EDGE ([0083]).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sennett et al. (US 20090247111 A1), hereinafter Sennett, in view of WATANABE et al (US 20190349648 A1) hereinafter WATANABE, further in view of Althani et al. (US 20250266899 A1), hereinafter Althani.
Regarding claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, WATANABE as included in the combination of references, further discloses wherein causing the identified immersive client devices to interrupt the ongoing immersive activities and display the emergency alert within the immersive environment of the identified immersive client devices by sending the generated alert event from the processing system to the identified immersive client devices further comprises: ([0119] [0147] “when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of a video, the interruption image 111 displayed in emergency is distributed to the client devices and the display 39 instead of continuing to distribute the video. [0119] interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device. Upon receipt of the control signal, the client device that received the control signal may perform a process to superimpose the interruption image 111 on the video being played or a process to display the interruption image 111 instead of the video being played”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) to integrate the unit 41a disclosed by WATANABE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit and display the interruption image in the immersive environment, WATANABE ([0119]).
However, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose, generating an audible warning sound or a flashing visual signal; or displaying alert details on an LCD display in response to determining that the immersive client devices do not support in-environment alert messages.
In the same field of endeavor, Althani discloses generating an audible warning sound or a flashing visual signal; or displaying alert details on an LCD display in response to determining that the immersive client devices do not support in-environment alert messages, ([0026] “[…] controller (111a) generates an alert (e.g., an audio alarm or flashing warning) to the user (120) while initiating an automatic emergency response sequence that can be deactivated by the user (120) within a preset grace period (e.g., 10 minutes) to cancel the emergency response sequence to avoid unintentional emergency response activation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to integrate the controller (111a) disclosed by Althani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to generates an alert to the user (120), Althani ([0026]).
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 8 above, WATANABE as included in the combination of references, further discloses wherein the processing system is configured to cause the identified immersive client devices to interrupt the ongoing immersive activities and display the emergency alert within the immersive environment of the identified immersive client devices by sending the generated alert event to the identified immersive client devices by: ([0119] [0147] “when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of a video, the interruption image 111 displayed in emergency is distributed to the client devices and the display 39 instead of continuing to distribute the video. [0119] interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device. Upon receipt of the control signal, the client device that received the control signal may perform a process to superimpose the interruption image 111 on the video being played or a process to display the interruption image 111 instead of the video being played”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) to integrate the unit 41a disclosed by WATANABE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit and display the interruption image in the immersive environment, WATANABE ([0119]).
However, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose generating an audible warning sound or a flashing visual signal; or displaying alert details on an LCD display in response to determining that the immersive client devices do not support in-environment alert messages.
In the same field of endeavor, Althani discloses generating an audible warning sound or a flashing visual signal; or displaying alert details on an LCD display in response to determining that the immersive client devices do not support in-environment alert messages, ([0026] “[…] controller (111a) generates an alert (e.g., an audio alarm or flashing warning) to the user (120) while initiating an automatic emergency response sequence that can be deactivated by the user (120) within a preset grace period (e.g., 10 minutes) to cancel the emergency response sequence to avoid unintentional emergency response activation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to integrate the controller (111a) disclosed by Althani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to generates an alert to the user (120), Althani ([0026]).
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 15 above, WATANABE as included in the combination of references, further discloses wherein the stored processor-executable software instructions are configured to cause a processing system to perform operations such that causing the identified immersive client devices to interrupt the ongoing immersive activities and display the emergency alert within the immersive environment of the identified immersive client devices by sending the generated alert event from the processor to the identified immersive client devices further comprises: ([0119] [0147] “when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of a video, the interruption image 111 displayed in emergency is distributed to the client devices and the display 39 instead of continuing to distribute the video. [0119] interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device. Upon receipt of the control signal, the client device that received the control signal may perform a process to superimpose the interruption image 111 on the video being played or a process to display the interruption image 111 instead of the video being played”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) to integrate the unit 41a disclosed by WATANABE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit and display the interruption image in the immersive environment, WATANABE ([0119]).
However, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose, generating an audible warning sound or a flashing visual signal; or displaying alert details on an LCD display in response to determining that the immersive client devices do not support in-environment alert messages.
In the same field of endeavor, Althani discloses generating an audible warning sound or a flashing visual signal; or displaying alert details on an LCD display in response to determining that the immersive client devices do not support in-environment alert messages, ([0026] “[…] controller (111a) generates an alert (e.g., an audio alarm or flashing warning) to the user (120) while initiating an automatic emergency response sequence that can be deactivated by the user (120) within a preset grace period (e.g., 10 minutes) to cancel the emergency response sequence to avoid unintentional emergency response activation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to integrate the controller (111a) disclosed by Althani. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to generates an alert to the user (120), Althani ([0026]).
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sennett et al. (US 20090247111 A1), hereinafter Sennett, in view of WATANABE et al (US 20190349648 A1) hereinafter WATANABE, further in view of Mendelson; Ehud (US 10117078 B1), hereinafter Mendelson.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 8 above, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose further comprising using an alternative communication method to propagate emergency alerts in response to determining that a main communication infrastructure is compromised, the alternative communication method including at least one of a Bluetooth communication method or peer-to-peer network communication method.
In the same field of endeavor, Mendelson discloses further comprising using an alternative communication method to propagate emergency alerts in response to determining that a main communication infrastructure is compromised, the alternative communication method including at least one of a Bluetooth communication method or peer-to-peer network communication method, (column 13, line 59 to column 14, line 4) “a system and method for use in an emergency condition and/or a disaster situation where the cellular or other communication infrastructure is damaged or failed. […] a cellular or mobile telephone user with an emergency application that can be initiated by the user. […] The emergency naming will be broadcasted by the cellular or mobile telephone via a Bluetooth signal or a Wi-Fi signal to be picked up by a search and rescue scanning4life scan device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to integrate the cellular or mobile telephone disclosed by Mendelson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to broadcast the emergency naming using the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi signal as an alternate method of transmission, Mendelson (column 13, line 59 to column 14, line 4).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 8 above, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose, wherein the processing system is further configured to use an alternative communication method to propagate emergency alerts in response to determining that the main communication infrastructure is compromised, the alternative communication method including at least one of a Bluetooth communication method or peer-to-peer network communication method.
In the same field of endeavor, Mendelson discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to use an alternative communication method to propagate emergency alerts in response to determining that the main communication infrastructure is compromised, the alternative communication method including at least one of a Bluetooth communication method or peer-to-peer network communication method, (column 13, line 59 to column 14, line 4) “a system and method for use in an emergency condition and/or a disaster situation where the cellular or other communication infrastructure is damaged or failed. […] a cellular or mobile telephone user with an emergency application that can be initiated by the user. […] The emergency naming will be broadcasted by the cellular or mobile telephone via a Bluetooth signal or a Wi-Fi signal to be picked up by a search and rescue scanning4life scan device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to integrate the cellular or mobile telephone disclosed by Mendelson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to broadcast the emergency naming using the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi signal as an alternate method of transmission, Mendelson (column 13, line 59 to column 14, line 4).
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 15 above, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose, wherein the stored processor-executable software instructions are configured to cause a processing system to perform operations further comprising using an alternative communication method to propagate the emergency alerts in response to determining that the main communication infrastructure is compromised, the alternative communication method including at least one of a Bluetooth communication method or peer-to-peer network communication method.
In the same field of endeavor, Mendelson discloses, wherein the stored processor-executable software instructions are configured to cause a processing system to perform operations further comprising using an alternative communication method to propagate the emergency alerts in response to determining that the main communication infrastructure is compromised, the alternative communication method including at least one of a Bluetooth communication method or peer-to-peer network communication method, (column 13, line 59 to column 14, line 4) “a system and method for use in an emergency condition and/or a disaster situation where the cellular or other communication infrastructure is damaged or failed. […] a cellular or mobile telephone user with an emergency application that can be initiated by the user. […] The emergency naming will be broadcasted by the cellular or mobile telephone via a Bluetooth signal or a Wi-Fi signal to be picked up by a search and rescue scanning4life scan device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to integrate the cellular or mobile telephone disclosed by Mendelson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to broadcast the emergency naming using the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi signal as an alternate method of transmission, Mendelson (column 13, line 59 to column 14, line 4).
Claims 7, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sennett et al. (US 20090247111 A1), hereinafter Sennett, in view of WATANABE et al (US 20190349648 A1) hereinafter WATANABE, further in view of Blanco (US 20250211503 A1), hereinafter Blanco.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1 above, WATANABE as included in the combination of references, further discloses interrupting network connections of the identified immersive client devices, ([0147] “when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of a video, the interruption image 111 displayed in emergency is distributed to the client devices and the display 39 instead of continuing to distribute the video. [0119] interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device. […]”); and
sending prompts regarding emergency alerts to the identified immersive client devices with interrupted network connections, ([0119] “interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) to integrate the unit 41a disclosed by WATANABE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit and display the interruption image in the immersive environment, WATANABE ([0119]).
However, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose, further comprising: identifying and analyzing network traffic to identify immersive client devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Blanco discloses, further comprising: identifying and analyzing network traffic to identify immersive client devices, ([0009] “This specification generally describes systems and methods that can analyze network traffic data in order to map each user agent specified in the network traffic data onto a corresponding device identifier that represents a client device at a residential household computer, tablets, mobile phones, or any other appropriate client device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to include the network traffic data, disclosed by Blanco. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to identify each user agent specified and map it to the corresponding client device, Blanco ([0009]).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 8 above, WATANABE as included in the combination of references, further discloses interrupt network connections of the identified immersive client devices, ([0147] “when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of a video, the interruption image 111 displayed in emergency is distributed to the client devices and the display 39 instead of continuing to distribute the video. [0119] interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device. […]”); and
send prompts regarding emergency alerts to the identified immersive client devices with interrupted network connections, ([0119] “interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) to integrate the unit 41a disclosed by WATANABE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit and display the interruption image in the immersive environment, WATANABE ([0119]).
However, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose, wherein the processing system is further configured to: identify and analyze network traffic to identify immersive client devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Blanco discloses wherein the processing system is further configured to: identify and analyze network traffic to identify immersive client devices, ([0009] “This specification generally describes systems and methods that can analyze network traffic data in order to map each user agent specified in the network traffic data onto a corresponding device identifier that represents a client device at a residential household computer, tablets, mobile phones, or any other appropriate client device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to include the network traffic data, disclosed by Blanco. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to identify each user agent specified and map it to the corresponding client device, Blanco ([0009]).
Regarding claim 21, as applied to claim 15 above, WATANABE as included in the combination of references, further discloses interrupting network connections of the identified immersive client devices, ([0147] “when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of a video, the interruption image 111 displayed in emergency is distributed to the client devices and the display 39 instead of continuing to distribute the video. [0119] interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device. […]”); and
sending prompts regarding the emergency alerts to the identified immersive client devices with interrupted network connections, ([0119] “interruption image 111 is an image that is displayed in emergency instead of displaying a video containing a normal virtual space and a character object when an unexpected situation occurs during a live distribution of the video. […] the additional information display unit 41a may transmit a control signal for displaying the interruption image 111 to the client device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) to integrate the unit 41a disclosed by WATANABE. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit and display the interruption image in the immersive environment, WATANABE ([0119]).
However, Sennett as modified by WATANABE does not disclose, wherein the stored processor-executable software instructions are configured to cause a processing system to perform operations further comprising: identifying and analyzing network traffic to identify immersive client devices.
In the same field of endeavor, Blanco discloses, wherein the stored processor-executable software instructions are configured to cause a processing system to perform operations further comprising: identifying and analyzing network traffic to identify immersive client devices, ([0009] “This specification generally describes systems and methods that can analyze network traffic data in order to map each user agent specified in the network traffic data onto a corresponding device identifier that represents a client device at a residential household computer, tablets, mobile phones, or any other appropriate client device”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the MSC 64, disclosed by Sennett ([0041]) as modified by WATANABE to include the network traffic data, disclosed by Blanco. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to identify each user agent specified and map it to the corresponding client device, Blanco ([0009]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12, and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT GRANT whose telephone number is (703)756-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 7:00 pm, Monday - Thursday.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/GILBERT M. GRANT/Examiner, Art Unit 2642
/Rafael Pérez-Gutiérrez/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights