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 statement (IDS) submitted on October 2, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on October 2, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 10-11, 15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauenstein et al. (hereinafter “Hauenstein”, US 2023/0344936) in view of Dillon et al. (hereinafter “Dillon”, US 8,731,144).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19-20, Hauenstein discloses a method, a system, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions stored thereon, comprising:
receiving, via an Internet of Things (IoT) device, a notification of an emergency condition (i.e., subscriber A initiates an emergency call, or automatically call the predefined destination when sensor detected an emergency condition as described in paragraphs 0019, 0044-0045, and 0053-0056);
establishing an emergency Protocol Data Unit (PDU) session between the IoT device and a mobile packet core (i.e., transmitting the SIP messages over VoIP network as shown in Fig. 5);
providing, via the emergency PDU session (i.e., signaling between VoIP network and SIP Server with Integrated IoT gateway), a managed data connection between the IoT device and an emergency service provider (i.e., automatically call the predefined destination (e.g., PSAP, responders) when sensor detected an emergency condition as shown in Fig. 5, and as described in paragraph 0011);
transporting an IoT Emergency text message as data payload over the emergency PDU session via the managed data connection (i.e., transmitting a text message via Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) as described in paragraph 0057); and
performing, via the mobile packet core (i.e., via VoIP network as shown in Fig. 1), Network-Induced Location Requests (NI-LR) during the emergency PDU session setup that enable automated location reporting of the IoT device to the emergency service provider (i.e., determining that it is an emergency condition, checking if the Presence Information Data Format Location Object (PIDF-LO) was received or must be included and sending this message to the Emergency Service of the EsiNet 5 as described in paragraphs 0039-0040. The PIDF document including the geo-location of subscriber A as described in paragraphs 0051-0053).
Hauenstein, however, does not expressly disclose:
establishing a session between the device and a network that support both registered and unregistered IoT devices; and
providing a managed data connection between the device and an emergency service provider with priority over regular data connections.
In a similar endeavor, Dillon discloses temporary callback system for emergency calls and methods thereof. Dillon also discloses:
establishing a session between the device and a network that support both registered and unregistered IoT devices (i.e., establishing both registered or unregistered device as described in claim 1); and
providing a managed data connection between the device and an emergency service provider with priority over regular data connections (i.e., higher priority is set when a call is an emergency call as described in col. 6, lines 6-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to allow any user to connect to the network and get assistance in case of emergency.
With further regard to claim 10, Hauenstein also discloses a memory that stores computer-executable instructions and a processor (i.e., a processor that is connected to non-transitory memory as described in paragraph 011).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Hauenstein and Dillon disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Hauenstein also discloses wherein the IoT device includes a sensor that is selected from one or more of: an industrial sensor, a power transmission plant sensor, a home security sensor, a vehicle sensor, or an aircraft sensor (i.e., security monitoring and measurement devices as shown in Fig. 4, and as described in paragraph 0050).
Regarding claims 6, and 15, Hauenstein and Dillon disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. Hauenstein also discloses providing IoT device location reporting by leveraging the emergency PDU session triggered Network Induced Location Request (NI-LR) process (i.e., PIDF for transporting data as described in paragraphs 0017-0021).
Claim(s) 3-4, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauenstein view of Dillon, and further in view of Jalkanen et al. (hereinafter “Jalkanen”, US 10,897,696).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Hauenstein and Dillon disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Jalkanen discloses emergency messaging. Jalkanen also discloses sending the IoT Emergency text message using non-IP stack based communication (i.e., using Non-IP Data Delivery (NIDD) functionality as described in Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to make it more reliable and more power-efficient for the IoT devices.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Hauenstein, Dillon, and Jalkanen disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above. wherein the non-IP stack based communication is one or more of: narrowband IoT network communication, non-continuous communication, limited bandwidth communication, wide area communication, hub-free communication, and NIDD communication (i.e., using NIDD functionality as described in Abstract).
Claim(s) 5 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauenstein view of Dillon, and further in view of Broszeit et al. (hereinafter “Broszeit”, US 2025/0311054).
Regarding claims 5, and 14, Hauenstein and Dillon disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Broszeit discloses emergency message handling. Broszeit also discloses providing priority treatment to the emergency text payload by leveraging priority treatment for the emergency PDU session (i.e., the message comprises the NAS PDU set to “emergency SMS”, thus indicating that the message is handled with priority as described in paragraph 0041, and in Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to ensure the emergency traffic could be routed faster and more reliably.
Claim(s) 7-9, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauenstein view of Dillon, and further in view of Avula et al. (hereinafter “Avula”, US 2021/0051478).
Regarding claims 7, and 16, Hauenstein and Dillon disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Avula discloses private wireless network guest access. Avula also discloses enabling unregistered IoT devices to perform emergency registration towards the core network (i.e., the unregistered UE performs an emergency attachment towards the network in step 245 as shown in Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable any device to connect to the network and get assistance in case of emergency.
Regarding claims 8, and 17, Hauenstein and Dillon disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Avula discloses private wireless network guest access. Avula also discloses enabling emergency registration of the IoT device without requiring subscription authentication with the mobile packet core (i.e., an emergency attach procedure is initiated and permitting the UE to access without an authentication as described in paragraph 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable any device to connect to the network and get assistance in case of emergency.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Hauenstein and Dillon disclose all limitations recited within claims as described above, but do not expressly disclose features of these claims.
In a similar endeavor, Avula discloses private wireless network guest access. Avula also discloses enabling an emergency PDU session from an emergency registered IoT device, and preventing an emergency PDU session from IoT devices other than the emergency registered IoT device (i.e., preventing from connecting to the private wireless network 115 unless it is an emergency attachment as described in paragraphs 0014-0016).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the teachings of the cited references, and arrive at the present invention.
The motivation/suggestion for doing so would have been to enable any device to connect to the network and get assistance in case of emergency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached at (571)270-5371. 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.
/Wayne H Cai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights