NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 13-15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites one or more processors performing various steps at a mobile device. Dependent claims 13-15 recites a further step of comparing voice data, however this step is performed outside of the user device according to the disclosure. Claims 17 and 18 similarly disclose a step performed at the network node.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korean Patent KR20070006395A to Kyoung et al. (“Kyoung”) in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2021/0044633A1 to John et al. (“John”).
As to claim 1, Kyoung discloses a method comprising providing by a mobile device to a SMSC of a wireless network, a SMS message. Kyoung at Abstract. This message comprises a destination for a service application server. Id. at TECH-SOLUTION (“text message consisting of the name and ID call service access number”); (“the other number is the ID [of] the call service access number”).
Based on the originating number and destination number and an assertion of priority, the mobile unit receives an initiation of a priority communication with the destination number. Kyoung at TECH-SOLUTION (“based on the ID of the call service method, a registration step of registering the service to map the at least one identifier of the called number and the identity of the character; When the user ID and the ID number to access the call service consisting of a text message is entered, ID service call service call step-up call service ID number that call based on logic; And in accordance with the ID call service logic, by selecting the identity of the called number that is mapped to the text message, the called number and the calling number of the call to the text message, a call to the destination terminal between the service coupling”); (“[a]t this time, the service subscriber can set the destination number than a plurality pieces, in which case the call priority is specified. Accordingly, the application server 14 is connected to the called party number [] sequentially according to the priority call”); (“the service subscriber can set the destination number than a plurality pieces, in which case the call priority is specified”).
Kyoung does not disclose that the service application server is an emergency application server, or the receiving by the mobile device of a SIP message initiating verification of the user.
To that end, John discloses an analogous art, namely to provisioning of communications to a user, including by way of SMS, of priority communications. John at Abstract and ¶11 (“[e]mergency and Priority Service users (e.g., devices that are assigned a network Access Class (AC) of 11-15) may be granted priority access to network services”). John states that, in order to provide priority communications, it is useful to verify a user in the authentication process by way of a SIP message sent to the user device and thus allowing a priority connection to proceed. Id. at FIG 6B and at ¶66 (“[r]eferring to FIG. 6B, S-CSCF 286 may perform registration procedures which may include challenging the UE device 110 for authentication credentials. For example, S-CSCF 286 may perform an authentication challenge by sending a SIP 401 unauthorized message to UE device 110 (signal flows 622-626). UE device 110 may respond with a new SIP Register message (e.g., including the same SIP RPH) along with the authentication responses via P-CSCF 282 and I-CSCF 284 (signal flows 628-632). S-CSCF 286 may accept the registration from UE device 110 and send back a registration confirmation (e.g., a SIP 200 OK message in response to the SIP Register message) to UE device 110 via I-CSCF 284 and P-CSCF 282 (signal flows 634-638)”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add the features of John to Kyoung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be use of a known technique to improve a similar system and method in the same way. MPEP § 2143 I. C., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 2:
The method of claim 1, wherein the emergency service application server is part of Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS).
John discloses the emergency server is a part of GETS. John at ¶56.
Further as to claim 3:
The method of claim 2, further comprising:
in response to the SIP message, receiving, by the mobile communication device, an announcement indicating the mobile communication device is accessing GETS of an operator of the wireless communication network.
John discloses responsive to the SIP message, the UE receives an indication that the UE is able to access, which reads accessing the service. John at FIG 6B element 638.
Further as to claim 7:
The method of claim 1, wherein interacting, by the mobile communication device, with the communication device associated with the destination phone number is further based at least in part on privileges associated with an authentication code associated with the user.
John discloses that the interaction access is based on privileges associated with authentication information associated with the user. John at ¶¶31 and 66.
As to claim 10, Kyoung discloses a method performed by one or more processors in user equipment and a network device using computer executable instructions stored in memory. Kyoung at TECH-SOLUTION (“an object thereof is to provide a recording medium readable by a computer storing a program for the method”); (“ the ID call service device with a processor”); . The method comprises providing by a mobile device to a SMSC of a wireless network, a SMS message. Kyoung at Abstract. This message comprises a destination for a service application server. Id. at TECH-SOLUTION (“text message consisting of the name and ID call service access number”); (“the other number is the ID [of] the call service access number”).
Based on the originating number and destination number and an assertion of priority, the mobile unit receives an initiation of a priority communication with the destination number. Kyoung at TECH-SOLUTION (“based on the ID of the call service method, a registration step of registering the service to map the at least one identifier of the called number and the identity of the character; When the user ID and the ID number to access the call service consisting of a text message is entered, ID service call service call step-up call service ID number that call based on logic; And in accordance with the ID call service logic, by selecting the identity of the called number that is mapped to the text message, the called number and the calling number of the call to the text message, a call to the destination terminal between the service coupling”); (“[a]t this time, the service subscriber can set the destination number than a plurality pieces, in which case the call priority is specified. Accordingly, the application server 14 is connected to the called party number [] sequentially according to the priority call”); (“the service subscriber can set the destination number than a plurality pieces, in which case the call priority is specified”).
Kyoung does not disclose that the service application server is an emergency application server, or the receiving by the mobile device of a SIP message initiating verification of the user.
To that end, John discloses an analogous art, namely to provisioning of communications to a user, including by way of SMS, of priority communications. John at Abstract and ¶11 (“[e]mergency and Priority Service users (e.g., devices that are assigned a network Access Class (AC) of 11-15) may be granted priority access to network services”). John states that, in order to provide priority communications, it is useful to verify a user in the authentication process by way of a SIP message sent to the user device and thus allowing a priority connection to proceed. Id. at FIG 6B and at ¶66 (“[r]eferring to FIG. 6B, S-CSCF 286 may perform registration procedures which may include challenging the UE device 110 for authentication credentials. For example, S-CSCF 286 may perform an authentication challenge by sending a SIP 401 unauthorized message to UE device 110 (signal flows 622-626). UE device 110 may respond with a new SIP Register message (e.g., including the same SIP RPH) along with the authentication responses via P-CSCF 282 and I-CSCF 284 (signal flows 628-632). S-CSCF 286 may accept the registration from UE device 110 and send back a registration confirmation (e.g., a SIP 200 OK message in response to the SIP Register message) to UE device 110 via I-CSCF 284 and P-CSCF 282 (signal flows 634-638)”). John further states the methodology is performed using computer readable media storing programs executed by a processor in the UE and in the network device. Id. at FIG 3 and ¶38.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add the features of John to Kyoung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be use of a known technique to improve a similar system and method in the same way. MPEP § 2143 I. C., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 11:
The system of claim 10, wherein the emergency service application server is part of Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS).
John discloses the emergency server is a part of GETS. John at ¶56.
Further as to claim 12:
The system of claim 11, wherein the actions further comprise:
in response to the SIP message, receiving, by the mobile communication device, an announcement indicating the mobile communication device is accessing GETS of an operator of the wireless communication network.
John discloses responsive to the SIP message, the UE receives an indication that the UE is able to access, which reads accessing the service. John at FIG 6B element 638.
Further as to claim 16:
The system of claim 10, wherein interacting, by the mobile communication device, with the communication device associated with the destination phone number is further based at least in part on privileges associated with an authentication code associated with the user.
John discloses that the interaction access is based on privileges associated with authentication information associated with the user. John at ¶¶31 and 66.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung in view of John as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2011/0246196A1 to Bhaskaran (“Bhaskaran”).
As to claim 4:
The method of claim 1, wherein verification of the user of the mobile communication device comprises comparison of a voice of the user with a passphrase previously recorded by the user.
Kyoung and John disclose claim 1 above, from which claim 4 depends, but fails to disclose that the verification comprises comparing a voice of the user with a previous passphrase.
Bhakaran discloses prompting a user for a voice passphrase and comparing the response to a prerecorded one in order to authenticate a user for access to a telecommunications system. Bhaskaran at Abstract and ¶¶16 and 24. Bhaskaran states that the message may be a SIP message. Id. at ¶¶26 and 35.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add the features of Bhakaran to Kyoung and John. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be use of a known technique to improve a similar system and method in the same way. MPEP § 2143 I. C., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 5:
The method of claim 4, wherein comparison of the voice of the user with the passphrase previously recorded by the user comprises comparison of the passphrase previously recorded by the user with words annunciated by the user in response to at least an announcement indicating the mobile communication device is accessing Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) of an operator of the wireless communication network.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood the prompting of the user to state their passphrase would necessarily explain the reasons for the prompting.
Further as to claim 6:
The method of claim 5, wherein the words annunciated by the user in response to at least the announcement comprises the passphrase.
Bhakaran discloses that the user states the phrase in response to the prompting as shown above as to claim 4.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung in view of John as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2022/0095315A1 to Vaidya et al. (“Vaidya”).
As to claim 8:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
preauthorizing the mobile communication device for a predetermined amount of time for interaction of the mobile communication device with the destination phone number.
While disclosing applicant’s claim 1 above, Kyoung and John do not disclose authorizing communications for a set period of time.
Vaidya discloses provisioning priority communications by way of a GETS service for an amount of time indicated by a duration field. Vaidya at ¶¶1, 3, and 14-15.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add the features of Vaidya to Kyoung and John. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be use of a known technique to improve a similar system and method in the same way. MPEP § 2143 I. C., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung in view of John and Vaidya as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of U.S. Pat. PGPUB 2023/0030719A1 to Raucher et al. (“Raucher”).
As to claim 9:
The method of claim 8, wherein preauthorization of the mobile communication device is only valid within a predefined geofence of the wireless communication network.
Kyoung in view of John and Vaidya discloses claim 8 above, but fails to disclose that preauthorization of the device is valid only in a geofence of the network.
Raucher discloses a wireless system and means and a method of provisioning priority access to devices therein, wherein authorization is provided only within a geofence. Raucher at FIG 3B and at ¶¶8, 26, and 40.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add the features of Raucher to Kyoung, John, and Vaidya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be use of a known technique to improve a similar system and method in the same way. MPEP § 2143 I. C., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung in view of John as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Bhaskaran.
As to claim 13:
The system of claim 10, wherein verification of the user of the mobile communication device comprises comparison of a voice of the user with a passphrase previously recorded by the user.
Kyoung and John disclose claim 10 above, from which claim 13 depends, but fails to disclose that the verification comprises comparing a voice of the user with a previous passphrase.
Bhakaran discloses prompting a user for a voice passphrase and comparing the response to a prerecorded one in order to authenticate a user for access to a telecommunications system. Bhaskaran at Abstract and ¶¶16 and 24. Bhaskaran states that the message may be a SIP message. Id. at ¶¶26 and 35.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add the features of Bhakaran to Kyoung and John. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be use of a known technique to improve a similar system and method in the same way. MPEP § 2143 I. C., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 14:
The system of claim 13, wherein comparison of the voice of the user with the passphrase previously recorded by the user comprises comparison of the passphrase previously recorded by the user with words annunciated by the user in response to at least an announcement indicating the mobile communication device is accessing Government Emergency Telecommunications Service (GETS) of an operator of the wireless communication network.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood the prompting of the user to state their passphrase would necessarily explain the reasons for the prompting.
Further as to claim 15:
The system of claim 14, wherein the words annunciated by the user in response to at least the announcement comprises the passphrase.
Bhakaran discloses that the user states the phrase in response to the prompting as shown above as to claim 13.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung in view of John as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Vaidya.
As to claim 17:
The system of claim 10, wherein the actions further comprise:
preauthorizing the mobile communication device for a predetermined amount of time for interaction of the mobile communication device with the destination phone number.
While disclosing applicant’s claim 10 above, Kyoung and John do not disclose authorizing communications for a set period of time.
Vaidya discloses provisioning priority communications by way of a GETS service for an amount of time indicated by a duration field. Vaidya at ¶¶1, 3, and 14-15.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add the features of Vaidya to Kyoung and John. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be use of a known technique to improve a similar system and method in the same way. MPEP § 2143 I. C., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung in view of John and Vaidya as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Raucher.
As to claim 18:
The system of claim 17, wherein preauthorization of the mobile communication device is only valid within a predefined geofence of the wireless communication network.
Kyoung in view of John and Vaidya discloses claim 17 above, but fails to disclose that preauthorization of the device is valid only in a geofence of the network.
Raucher discloses a wireless system and means and a method of provisioning priority access to devices therein, wherein authorization is provided only within a geofence. Raucher at FIG 3B and at ¶¶8, 26, and 40.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add the features of Raucher to Kyoung, John, and Vaidya. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be use of a known technique to improve a similar system and method in the same way. MPEP § 2143 I. C., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyoung in view of John and Bhakaran.
As to claim 19, Kyoung discloses a method comprising providing by a mobile device to a SMSC of a wireless network, a SMS message. Kyoung at Abstract. This message comprises a destination for a service application server. Id. at TECH-SOLUTION (“text message consisting of the name and ID call service access number”); (“the other number is the ID [of] the call service access number”).
Based on the originating number and destination number and an assertion of priority, the mobile unit receives an initiation of a priority communication with the destination number. Kyoung at TECH-SOLUTION (“based on the ID of the call service method, a registration step of registering the service to map the at least one identifier of the called number and the identity of the character; When the user ID and the ID number to access the call service consisting of a text message is entered, ID service call service call step-up call service ID number that call based on logic; And in accordance with the ID call service logic, by selecting the identity of the called number that is mapped to the text message, the called number and the calling number of the call to the text message, a call to the destination terminal between the service coupling”); (“[a]t this time, the service subscriber can set the destination number than a plurality pieces, in which case the call priority is specified. Accordingly, the application server 14 is connected to the called party number [] sequentially according to the priority call”); (“the service subscriber can set the destination number than a plurality pieces, in which case the call priority is specified”).
Kyoung does not disclose that the service application server is an emergency application server, specifically for the GETS system, or the receiving by the mobile device of a SIP message initiating verification of the user. Kyound does not disclose an announcement or that verification includes comparing a voiceprint.
John discloses an analogous art, namely to provisioning of communications to a user, including by way of SMS, of priority communications. John at Abstract and ¶11 (“[e]mergency and Priority Service users (e.g., devices that are assigned a network Access Class (AC) of 11-15) may be granted priority access to network services”). John states that, in order to provide priority communications, it is useful to verify a user in the authentication process by way of a SIP message sent to the user device and thus allowing a priority connection to proceed. Id. at FIG 6B and at ¶66 (“[r]eferring to FIG. 6B, S-CSCF 286 may perform registration procedures which may include challenging the UE device 110 for authentication credentials. For example, S-CSCF 286 may perform an authentication challenge by sending a SIP 401 unauthorized message to UE device 110 (signal flows 622-626). UE device 110 may respond with a new SIP Register message (e.g., including the same SIP RPH) along with the authentication responses via P-CSCF 282 and I-CSCF 284 (signal flows 628-632). S-CSCF 286 may accept the registration from UE device 110 and send back a registration confirmation (e.g., a SIP 200 OK message in response to the SIP Register message) to UE device 110 via I-CSCF 284 and P-CSCF 282 (signal flows 634-638)”).
John specifies that the emergency system is a GETS system. Id. at ¶56.
Bhakaran discloses prompting a user for a voice passphrase and comparing the response to a prerecorded one in order to authenticate a user for access to a telecommunications system. Bhaskaran at Abstract and ¶¶16 and 24. Bhaskaran states that the message may be a SIP message. Id. at ¶¶26 and 35. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time would have understood the prompting of the user to state their passphrase would necessarily explain the reasons for the prompting.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add the features of John and Bhakaran to Kyoung. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood such to merely be use of a known technique to improve a similar system and method in the same way. MPEP § 2143 I. C., citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Further as to claim 20:
The method of claim 19, wherein comparison of the voice of the user with the passphrase previously recorded by the user comprises comparison of the passphrase previously recorded by the user with words annunciated by the user in response to at least the announcement.
Bhakaran discloses that the user states the phrase in response to the prompting as shown above as to claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Charles Craver whose telephone number is (571) 272-7849. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:30-5:30 PT Pacific Time.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Signed,
/CHARLES R CRAVER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights