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 statement (IDS) submitted on September 13th, 2024, September 02nd, 2025 and December 18th, 2025 has been considered and made of record in the application file history.
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 1-9, 24 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 24 recite, for example, acquiring an identifier of a first area, selecting, as distribution information for each of a plurality of second areas, distribution information which is associated with the first area indicated by the identifier acquired in the acquisition process and which is associated with the second area, and transmitting, for each of the plurality of second areas, data including an identifier of the second area and an identifier of distribution information which has been selected for the second area. The claims further recite a processor or program for causing a processor to carry out these steps.
The limitation of acquiring an identifier of a first area, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “acquiring” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally identifying an area. Similarly, the limitation of selecting distribution information for each of a plurality of second areas, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “selecting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user thinking about which information is relevant to each area. The limitation of transmitting data including identifiers, as drafted, is likewise a mental process but for the recitation of a generic processor or apparatus. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite one additional element – using a processor, apparatus, or program to perform the acquisition, selection, and transmission steps. The processor or apparatus in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor or generic apparatus performing generic computer functions of acquiring, selecting, and transmitting information based on area identifiers and associations) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor, apparatus, or program to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4, 6-9 and 28-29 depends from claim 1, 5 and 24 and do not remedy the deficiencies identified above with respect to claim 1, 5 and 24, and therefore are rejected under the same grounds as claims 1, 5 and 24 above. Therefore, none of the additional limitations recited in these claims amount to anything more than the same or a similar abstract idea as recited in claims 1, 5 and 24 above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 24 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Raje et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,687,192 (hereinafter Raje).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 24, Raje discloses an information processing method (see figs. 4-6), communication control apparatus (e.g., Cell broadcasting centre (CBC)) (see figs. 1-3) and information processing apparatus (e.g., Coordinating Server), comprising at least one processor (see Col. 20, lines 8-11 and figs. 3 & 7), the at least one processor carrying out:
an acquisition process of acquiring an identifier of a first area (i.e., Raje discloses a coordinating server that receives warning request messages from MME which contains area identifiers such as tracking area codes, emergency area IDs, and cell IDs, thereby acquiring identifiers of a first area (the emergency area to be targeted). “The Write-Replace Warning Request message as described in 3GPP TS 36.413 has following fields: message-identifier, serial-number, warning-area-list...”) (see Col. 16, lines 1-8 & line 46 through Col. 17, line 11 and fig. 4; steps 401 & 402);
a selection process of selecting, as distribution information for each of a plurality of second areas, distribution information which is associated with the first area indicated by the identifier acquired in the acquisition process and which is associated with the second area (i.e., The coordinating server determines which base stations (fixed, in-vehicle, neighbor) are within or near the emergency area and selects the appropriate warning message (distribution information) for each, based on their association with the first area (emergency) and their own area (second area). The selection is based on area association and proximity, as the server translates area lists to geographic areas and selects recipients accordingly. See, e.g., Col. 16, lines 14–67 & Col. 17, lines 1-40: “The coordinating server identifies eNodeBs based on, e.g., the tracking area codes, emergency area ids, CGIs, or ECGIs in the warning area list information element.”); and
a transmission process of transmitting, for each of the plurality of second areas, data including an identifier of the second area and an identifier of distribution information which has been selected for the second area (i.e., Raje discloses transmitting warning messages to all selected base stations (including in-vehicle eNodeBs and neighbor cells), where the message includes the identifiers of the second area (e.g., cell ID, tracking area, or emergency area of the recipient) and the selected warning message identifier/content. This satisfies the transmission process for each second area. See, e.g., Col. 16, lines 14–67 & Col. 18, lines 8–53: “the coordinating server may then forward the broadcasting request to all the fixed and in-vehicle base stations or eNodeBs present in the potentially danger zone as identified in the warning message”).
Regarding claim 2, Raje discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Raje teaches wherein the distribution information includes route information associated with the first area and the second area (i.e., Raje describes that the warning messages sent to devices (e.g., in-vehicle eNodeBs) can include information about evacuation, routes, and guidance relevant to the emergency area (first area) and the area to be notified (second area). In addition, Raje describes dynamic notification to vehicles (e.g., bus 314) approaching danger zones, potentially including route or evacuation guidance) (See Col. 13, lines 8-35, Col. 15, line 54 – Col. 16, line 8 and figs. 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 3, Raje discloses all the limitations of claim 2. In addition, Raje teaches wherein: the first area is an area related to occurrence of an emergency; the second area is an area to be notified of the occurrence of the emergency; and the distribution information includes evacuation route information associated with the first area and the second area (i.e., Raje describes that the warning messages sent to devices (e.g., in-vehicle eNodeBs) can include information about evacuation, routes, and guidance relevant to the emergency area (first area) and the area to be notified (second area). In addition, Raje describes dynamic notification to vehicles (e.g., bus 314) approaching danger zones, potentially including route or evacuation guidance) (See Col. 13, lines 8-35, Col. 15, line 54 – Col. 16, line 8 and figs. 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 4, Raje discloses all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Raje teaches wherein: the plurality of second areas correspond to a plurality of cells, respectively, which are provided by a local 5G network (see Col. 15, lines 22-37 and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Raje discloses all the limitations of claim 5. In addition, Raje teaches wherein: the distribution information includes route information associated with the first area and the second area (i.e., Raje describes that the warning messages sent to devices (e.g., in-vehicle eNodeBs) can include information about evacuation, routes, and guidance relevant to the emergency area (first area) and the area to be notified (second area). In addition, Raje describes dynamic notification to vehicles (e.g., bus 314) approaching danger zones, potentially including route or evacuation guidance) (See Col. 13, lines 8-35, Col. 15, line 54 – Col. 16, line 8 and figs. 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 7, Raje discloses all the limitations of claim 6. In addition, Raje teaches wherein: the first area is an area related to occurrence of an emergency; the second area is an area to be notified of the occurrence of the emergency; and the distribution information includes evacuation route information associated with the first area and the second area (i.e., Raje describes that the warning messages sent to devices (e.g., in-vehicle eNodeBs) can include information about evacuation, routes, and guidance relevant to the emergency area (first area) and the area to be notified (second area). In addition, Raje describes dynamic notification to vehicles (e.g., bus 314) approaching danger zones, potentially including route or evacuation guidance) (See Col. 13, lines 8-35, Col. 15, line 54 – Col. 16, line 8 and figs. 2 & 3).
Regarding claim 8, Raje discloses all the limitations of claim 5. In addition, Raje teaches wherein: in the transmission process, the at least one processor transmits, to the transmission apparatus, the identifier of the distribution information for the second area by including the identifier in a notification that is distributed using ETWS (i.e., Raje discloses transmitting warning messages (Write-Replace Warning Request) to each eNodeB (transmission apparatus), where the message includes identifiers such as message-identifier and warning-area-list for the second area. In addition, Raje specifies that the public warning system is based on 3GPP standards, including ETWS, and that notifications are distributed accordingly) (see Col. 2, lines 5-25, Col. 15, lines 13-54 and Col. 16, lines 14-67).
Regarding claim 9, Raje discloses all the limitations of claim 5. In addition, Raje teaches wherein: the second area corresponds to a cell that is provided by a local 5G network (see Col. 15, lines 22-37 and fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, Raje discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as a information processing apparatus recited in claim 1, the program causing the computer to function as: carry out the acquisition process, the selection process and the transmission process (i.e., Raje teaches “The above-described features and applications can be implemented as software processes that are specified as a set of instructions recorded on a computer-readable storage medium (also referred to as computer readable medium). When these instructions are executed by one or more processing unit(s)...”)(see Col. 22, lines 34-46).
Regarding claim 29, Raje discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to function as a communication control apparatus recited in claim 5, the program causing the computer to function as: carry out the acquisition process and the transmission process (i.e., Raje teaches “The above-described features and applications can be implemented as software processes that are specified as a set of instructions recorded on a computer-readable storage medium (also referred to as computer readable medium). When these instructions are executed by one or more processing unit(s)...”)(see Col. 22, lines 34-46).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schmidt et al., U.S. Publication Number 2022/0078883 A1 discloses public warning system enhancment.
Kim et al., U.S. Publication Number 2017/0018187 A1 discloses apparatus and method for providing service in vehicle to everything communication system.
R et al., U.S. Publication Number 2016/0381537 A1 discloses method of notification of fire evacuation plan in floating crowd premises.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anthony Addy whose telephone number is (571) 272-7795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
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.
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights