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 .
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
4. In claims 1 and 8, the following three run on steps (and final concluding statement) are not only grammatically incorrect, they are unclear together in meaning.
1- in case that the first MCPTT client is authorized to remotely initiate the MCPTT call request,
2- in case that a second MCPTT client is a member of an MCPTT group,
3- and in case that the second MCPTT client is not affiliated to the MCPTT group,
Concluding statement- implicitly affiliate the second MCPTT client to the MCPTT group.
Each of the above steps are written in “if-then” statements. But for steps 1 and 2, there is no “then” statement. And if you take them together, steps 1-3, then the concluding statement, it makes no sense because, why would in the case of step 2 where the second MCPTT is a member of an MCPTT group would you “implicitly affiliate” the second MCPTT (as stated in the concluding statement) when it’s already affiliated with it. Clarification is requested.
5. In claims, 1, 3, 8 and 10, the use of “implicitly” in “implicitly affiliated” is indefinite. By definition, something implicit means doing something indirectly or suggested. The claims must be definite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamoorthy et al US 12167494 B2 (cited by applicant) in view of Patel et al US 10356565 B2.
Note: In view of the 112b issues, stated above, the following rejection is applied from what is best understood.
9. Consider Claim 8. Ramamoorthy et al teaches (fig 4) a mission critical push to talk (MCPTT) server (104), comprising: a communicator (420); and a processor (440) connected to the communicator and configured to: receive (fig 1), from a first MCPTT client (102) via the communicator, a remotely initiated MCPTT call request, check whether an MCPTT user at the first MCPTT client is authorized (fig. 1; 102) to initiate (col 6, lines 65-67) a remotely initiated MCPTT call request, and in case that the first MCPTT client is authorized to remotely initiate the MCPTT call request, in case that a second MCPTT client is a member of an MCPTT group (col 18, 40-52). Ramamoorthy et al fails to teach the case that the second MCPTT client is not affiliated to the MCPTT group, implicitly affiliate the second MCPTT client to the MCPTT group. However, Patel et al teaches such (see col 6, lines 1-23) where the situational awareness engine (204), which is part of the server can affiliate (or de-affiliate) members to form a temporary PTT group. It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to add the situational awareness engine capabilities taught by Patel et al in Ramamoorthy et al allowing it to temporarily add non-affiliated members (like next town firefighters) in a PTT in case of an emergency.
10. Regarding Claim 9. Ramamoorthy et al teaches (107 in fig 1) wherein the processor is further configured to: initiate an MCPTT group call establishment procedure with the first MCPTT client.
11. Regarding Claim 10. Patel et al teaches (col 13, line 67- col 14, line 1) wherein the processor is further configured to: de-affiliate the second MCPTT client from the MCPTT group in case that the MCPTT call is terminated (reads on situation over) and in case that the second MCPTT client is implicitly affiliated (part of the emergency response group).
12. Regarding Claim 11. Ramamoorthy et al teaches (col 7, lines 58-60) wherein the MCPTT call is an MCPTT group call.
13. Regarding Claim 12. Ramamoorthy et al teaches (col 7, lines 65-66) wherein the MCPTT call is an MCPTT private call (reads on when only 2 users are selected).
14. Regarding Claim 13. Ramamoorthy et al teaches wherein the processor (440) is further configured to: send, to the second MCPTT client (106) via the communicator (420), the remotely initiated MCPTT call request (103a in fig 1); and receive, from the second MCPTT client via the communicator, a remotely initiated MCPTT call response (106a in fig 1) to the remotely initiated MCPTT call request.
15. Regarding Claim 14. Ramamoorthy et al teaches wherein the processor (440) is further configured to: based on the remotely initiated MCPTT call response being received, inform (107 in fig 1) the first MCPTT client about successful remotely initiated MCPTT call request. Method claims 1-7 are rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claims 8-14 since the recited elements would perform the claimed steps.
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller et al US 2020/0099789 A1 teaches when a new group call is to be established, establishing the 3GPP MC video session 625 may occur via a group call request; however, when an existing group call is to be joined (e.g. between the first devices 101-1, 101-N), establishing the 3GPP MC video session 625 may occur via an affiliation request (e.g. to affiliate with an existing group call).
Wu et al US 11510030 B2 teaches a first network device receives a group selection request, where the group selection request is used to instruct to set a first MCPTT group as a selected MCPTT group for a first MCPTT user; and the first network device sends, according to the group selection request, information about the first MCPTT group to first UE used by the first MCPTT user, so that the first network device can set the first MCPTT group as a selected MCPTT group for the first MCPTT user.
Paterour et al US 11343689 teaches a PTT system wherein when the nodes are not affiliated to a same dedicated emergency group, or in the case where one at least of the nodes is not affiliated to any dedicated emergency group, or in any other case where it may be considered necessary, the session selected as “monitoring session” may be a communication group session established in “messaging” mode to which the two nodes are affiliated, the session being established between at least the two nodes.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights