DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to “an emergency key identifier (EKI)” comprising an information element (IE) embedded in a WIFi frame. A reasonable interpretation in light of the specification leads to the conclusion that the “emergency key identifier (EKI)” is a data structure (i.e., data per se) without a physical or tangible form, and therefore, the claims do not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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 1-4, 9, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DIVVI et al. (US 2023/0156448).
Regarding claim 1, Divvi discloses a wireless device (Fig. 3, wireless device300) comprising:
a memory storing data and instructions (Fig. 3, storage 328); and
a processor accessing the data and instructions and executing the instructions to perform multiple operations (Fig. 3, processor(s) 304) including;
scanning for available WiFi networks (p. [0089], lines 8-end; the wireless device send out
probe request to discover 802.11 networks within its proximity);
transmitting an emergency key identifier (EKI) to an apparatus providing the available WiFi network (p. [0092]; the wireless device sends an association request to the serving wireless device including a Unauthenticated Emergency Service Accessible UESA bit set (i.e., emergency key identifier)) upon finding a lack of credentials stored in the memory for utilizing the available WiFi network (p. [0039]; using UESA policies, the WLAN provide internet access to user devices without requiring authentication or subscription (i.e., no credentials)); and
joining an emergency session established by apparatus providing the available WiFi
network (p. [0092]; the wireless access point may bypass authentication and establish a connection for wireless device based on UESA).
Regarding claim 2, Divvi discloses the wireless device of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise generating the EKI at the wireless device (p. [0092]; the wireless device sends the association request including the UESA bit set (i.e., emergency key identifier)).
Regarding claim 3, Divvi discloses the wireless device of claim 2, wherein the stored instructions include EKI logic for generation and transmission of the EKI (p. [0092]; the wireless device sends the association request including the UESA bit set (i.e., emergency key identifier), thus instructions and logic for the generation and transmission are inherent).
Regarding claim 4, Divvi discloses the wireless device of claim 3, wherein transmitting the EKI includes transmitting the EKI in an association request (p. [0092]; p. [0092]; the wireless device sends the association request including the UESA bit set (i.e., emergency key identifier)).
Regarding claim 9, Divvi discloses the wireless device of claim 1, wherein joining the emergency session includes executing a voice over WiFi (VoWiFi) call (p. [0094], [0110]; emergency voice over WLAN, note that WiFi is a well-known wireless local area network).
Regarding claim 16, Divvi discloses an apparatus (Fig. 3, AP 300) comprising:
a memory storing data and instructions (p. [0079]);
a wireless communication interface (p. [0079]-[0080]); and
a processor accessing the data and instructions and executing the instructions (p. [0083]) to perform multiple operations including;
receiving an emergency key identifier (EKI) from a wireless device (p. [0092]; the wireless device sends an association request to the serving wireless device including a Unauthenticated Emergency Service Accessible UESA bit set (i.e., emergency key identifier), the serving wireless device/access point receives the association request) lacking credentials to access a wireless network (p. [0039]; using UESA policies, the WLAN provide internet access to user devices without requiring authentication or subscription (i.e., no credentials)); and
establishing an emergency session permitting the wireless device to access the wireless network and utilize voice over WiFi (VoWiFi) (p. [0092]; the wireless access point may bypass authentication and establish a connection for wireless device based on UESA; the wireless network support an emergency voice-over-WLAN call – p. [0094], [0110]).
Regarding claim 17, Davvi discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the EKI is received in an association request (p. [0092]; p. [0092]; the wireless device sends the association request including the UESA bit set (i.e., emergency key identifier), the serving wireless device/access point receives the association request).
Regarding claim 19, Davvi discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the emergency session is a VoWiFi call associated with an emergency event (p. [0094], [0110]; the wireless network supports an emergency voice-over-WLAN call).
Regarding claim 20, Davvi discloses the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the operations further comprise terminating the emergency session upon termination of the VoWiFi call (p. [0104]-[0105]; the network processor determine whether the established e911 has ended, in response to determining that the e911 has ended, the network processor may withdraw and decommission the new e911 SSID).
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 5, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DIVVI et al. in view of RUDOLF et al. (WO 2005/112488).
Regarding claim 5, Divvi discloses the wireless device of claim 3, but does not particularly disclose wherein transmitting the EKI includes transmitting the EKI in a WiFi frame.
However, Rudolf teaches wherein transmitting the EKI includes transmitting the EKI in a WiFi frame (abstract; p. [0013], [0040]-[0042]; an emergency call bit/flag indicator (i.e., EKI) is included in standard MAC frame (i.e., WiFi frame)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Divvi with the teachings of Rudolf, since such a modification would allow to provide an emergency indication to WLAN network in standard frames used for communication within the WLAN network.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Divvi and Rudolf disclose wireless device of claim 5, Rudolf discloses wherein transmitting the EKI in the WiFi frame includes transmitting the EKI as an information element (IE) in the WiFi frame (abstract; p. [0013], [0040]-[0042]; an emergency call bit/flag indicator (i.e., EKI) is included in standard MAC frame (i.e., WiFi frame), a priority for emergency calls can be indicated by an emergency type IE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Divvi with the teachings of Rudolf, since such a modification would allow to provide an emergency indication to WLAN network in standard.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Divvi and Rudolf disclose the wireless device of claim 5, but does not particularly disclose wherein the EKI is a maximum of sixty-four bytes.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to designate a maximum of sixty four bytes fort the EKI, since the applicant has not disclosed that the maximum of sixty four bytes for the EKI solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Regarding claim 18, Divvi discloses the apparatus of claim 16, but does not particularly disclose wherein the EKI is received as an information element (IE) in a WiFi frame.
However, Rudolf teaches wherein the EKI is received as an information element (IE) in a WiFi frame (abstract; p. [0013], [0040]-[0042]; an emergency call bit/flag indicator (i.e., EKI) is included in standard MAC frame (i.e., WiFi frame), a priority for emergency calls can be indicated by an emergency type IE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Divvi with the teachings of Rudolf, since such a modification would allow to provide an emergency indication to WLAN network in standard frames used for communication within the WLAN network.
8. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DAVVI et al. in view of CHEAZ et al. (US 2021/0289576).
Regarding claim 8, Davvi discloses the wireless device of claim 1, but does not particularly disclose wherein the scanning for the available WiFi is triggered by lack of cellular coverage.
However, Cheaz teaches wherein the scanning for the available WiFi is triggered by lack of cellular coverage (p. [0014], [0015], [0018]; if the IMD device cannot connect to a cell service, the IMD searches for a nearby active WiFi network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Davvi with the teachings of Cheaz, in order to continue emergency communications via a WiFi network when cellular network is not available.
Claims 10, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
RUDOLF et al. in view of DIVVI et al.
Regarding claim 10, Rudolf discloses an emergency key identifier (EKI) (abstract; an indicator to identify a call as an emergency call) comprising:
an information element (IE) embedded in a WiFi frame (p. [0040]-[0042]; an indicator for emergency calls can be indicated in MAC frames (i.e., WiFi frames) by an emergency type IE (information element)) transmitted from a wireless device to an apparatus providing a WiFi network to request establishment of an emergency voice session (p. [0042], [0097]; the indicator allows an AP to know that it needs to admit the emergency call).
But, Rudolf does not particularly disclose wherein the emergency session is an emergency voice session over WiFi (VoWiFi).
However, Davvi teaches establishing an emergency voice session over WiFi (VoWiFi) (p. [0094], [0110]; the wireless network can support an emergency voice-over-WLAN call, note that WiFi is a well-known WLAN network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rudolf with the teachings of Davvi, since such a modification would allow the wireless device to establish an emergency voice session with emergency dispatchers when obtaining service from a WLAN/WiFi network.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rudolf and Davvi disclose the EKI of claim 10, Rudolf discloses wherein the EKI includes an emergency identifier field including an identifier for an emergency event (p. [0042]; emergency message field part).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rudolf and Davvi disclose the EKI of claim 10, Rudolf discloses wherein the EKI IE further includes a media access control (MAC) address of the wireless device (p. [0041]-[0042]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Rudolf and Davvi disclose the EKI of claim 10, Rudolf discloses wherein the EKI further includes a field for a time of an emergency associated with the EKI (p. [0045], line 9-11; additional information can be included into the emergency call IE are timestamps (i.e., time of an emergency)).
10. Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RUDOLF et al. in views of DIVVI et al. and MAIER et al. (US 2013/0203376).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rudolf and Davvi disclose the EKI of claim 10, but does not particularly disclose wherein the EKI includes a unique element identifier identifying the EKI.
However, Maier discloses wherein the EKI includes a unique element identifier identifying the EKI (p. [0247], [0250], [0275]; emergency message includes a unique identifier for the mobile network device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Rudolf and Davvi with the teachings of Maier, in order to use to access and verify location information about the network device.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rudolf and Divvi disclose the EKI of claim 10,
but does not particularly disclose wherein the EKI further includes a unique identifier for an emergency.
However, Maier discloses wherein the EKI further includes a unique identifier for an emergency (p. [0247], [0250], [0275]; emergency message includes a unique identifier for the mobile network device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Rudolf and Davvi with the teachings of Maier, in order to use to access and verify location information about the network device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISOL FIGUEROA whose telephone number is (571)272-7840. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Jinsong Hu can be reached at 571-272-3965. 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.
/MARISOL FIGUEROA/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights