Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the Application No. 18/919,699 filed on 10/18/24. Claims 1 – 20 has been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8 – 10, 15 – 17, 19 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultana et al. (WO-2023/094261) in further view of Cisco (VoNR Support, Cisco hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, Sultana teaches A method for facilitating emergency text communications, the method comprising (Systems and methods are disclosed for Emergency Short Message Service (E-SMS) in a cellular communications system. In one embodiment, a method performed by a User Equipment (UE) for E-SMS in a cellular communications system comprises receiving, from a network node, an indication that E-SMS is supported and performing one or more actions related to E-SMS, responsive to the indication. In this manner, E-SMS in a cellular communications system is enabled, page 1, lines 20 - 24):
receiving a request for a user equipment (UE) to attach to a first node of a network (a UE for E-SMS in a cellular communications system comprises one or more transmitters, one or more receivers, and processing circuitry associated with the one or more transmitters and the one or more receivers. The processing circuitry is configured to cause the UE to send, to a network node, a registration or attach request comprising an indication that that the registration or attach request is for only E-SMS and perform one or more additional actions for a registration or attach procedure, page 3, lines 10 – 14);
provisioning the UE to initiate emergency text communication via the first node of the network (sending the indication comprises sending a NAS message (e.g., a registration accept) to the UE, the NAS registration accept message comprising the indication that E-SMS is supported, page 2, lines 15 - 20);
receiving a text communication (receiving data from a UE, the data comprising an E-SMS message, an indication that the E-SMS, page 3, lines 37 - 38);
determining that the text communication is an emergency text communication (sending, to a SMSF, the data comprising the E-SMS message, the indication that the E-SMS message is an E-SMS message, page 4, lines 2 - 4); and
communicating the emergency text communication via the first node of the network (sending, to a SMSF, the data comprising the E-SMS message, the indication that the E-SMS message is an E-SMS message, and the one or more emergency related numbers, and further comprising a UE identity (ID) of the UE as part of an originator address associated to the E-SMS message, page 4, lines 1 – 5; at the SMSF receiving the data from the first network node, page 4, lines 6 - 7).
However, does not specifically teach determining whether an emergency profile is associated with the UE;
upon determining that the emergency profile is associated with the UE, provisioning the UE.
In the same field of endeavor, Cisco teaches determining whether an emergency profile is associated with the UE (During the registration procedure, the AMF searches for an emergency profile in the call control policy configured for the UE, page 8; Fig. 3);
upon determining that the emergency profile is associated with the UE, provisioning the UE (If the AMF detects the profile, it sets the following parameters in the Registration Accept message, page 8; Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Cisco’s emergency profile and registration accept message with the system of Sultana. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because it can tie emergency profile to UE and will be able to allow UE the emergency services.
Regarding claim 4, Sultana with Cisco teaches The method according to claim 1,
Sultana further teaches wherein the first node is an eNodeB or a gNodeB (gNB, Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Sultana with Cisco teaches The method according to claim 1, Ericsson further teaches wherein the emergency text communication includes an emergency recipient from a predefined list of emergency recipients (receiving data from a UE, the data comprising an E-SMS message, an indication that the E-SMS message is an E-SMS message, and one or more emergency related numbers; page 4).
Regarding claim 8, Sultana with Cisco teaches The method according to claim 1,
Cisco further teaches wherein the emergency profile includes a unique identifier to map to UE information (If the UE provides a foreign GUTI, the AMF sends the Identity Check Procedure to retrieve the SUCI of the UE. If the AMF fails and authentication is optional, it retrieves Permanent Equipment Identifier (PEI) of the UE, page 8).
Regarding claim 9, The method according to claim 8, Ericsson further teaches wherein the UE information comprises a phone number of the UE (In one embodiment, the method further comprises, at the local SMS-GMSC or local SMS-IWMSC, discovering the SMSF based on IMSI or MSIDN, page 5).
Regarding claim 10, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 15, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 16, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 9, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 17, the one or more non-transitory storage media has same limitations as claim 1, thus the same rejection is applicable (computer program, page 13).
Regarding claim 19, the one or more non-transitory storage media substantially has same limitations as claim 4, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 20, the one or more non-transitory storage media substantially has same limitations as claim 6, thus the same rejection is applicable.
7. Claim(s) 2 – 3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultana et al. (WO-2023/094261) in further view of Cisco (VoNR Support, Cisco hereafter) in further view of Apple (US 2024/0267711).
Regarding claim 2, Sultana with Cisco teaches The method according to claim 1, however, does not specifically teach wherein the UE is not provisioned to communicate via the first node.
In the same field of endeavor, Apple teaches wherein the UE is not provisioned to communicate via the first node (the network entity 115 determines that the wireless device 102 is communicatively coupled to the MNO 114 under a limited-service connection due to being unaffiliated with the MNO 114. Moreover, at step 306, the network entity 115 determines that a destination address of the SMS message corresponds to an emergency service. Steps 304 and 306 constitute relevant determinations in that the MNO 114 may choose to act on the SMS message if it is emergency-based, notwithstanding the fact that the limited-service connection yields the MNO 114 under no contractual obligation to do so, paragraph 46).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Apple’s teaching of if UE is not provisioned to communicate via first node. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because in doing so it will provide communication during the emergency situation if there are limited-service scenarios.
Regarding claim 3, Sultana with Cisco and Apple teaches The method according to claim 2,
In the same field of endeavor, Apple teaches wherein the UE is provisioned to communicate via a second node (Moreover, at step 306, the network entity 115 determines that a destination address of the SMS message corresponds to an emergency service. Steps 304 and 306 constitute relevant determinations in that the MNO 114 may choose to act on the SMS message if it is emergency-based, notwithstanding the fact that the limited-service connection yields the MNO 114 under no contractual obligation to do so).
Regarding claim 11, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 2, thus the same rejection is applicable.
8. Claim(s) 5, 7, 12 – 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sultana et al. (WO-2023/094261) in further view of Cisco (VoNR Support, Cisco hereafter) in further view of Idac holdings (US 2022/0369374, Idac hereafter).
Regarding claim 5, Sultana with Cisco teaches claim 1, however does not specifically teach wherein the first node is a non-terrestrial node.
In the same field of endeavor, Idac teaches wherein the first node is a non-terrestrial node (The method further comprises determining that a gNodeB is a non-terrestrial gNodeB, paragraph 70).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of non-terrestrial communication node with the combined system of Ericsson with Cisco. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because in doing so it can support/provide multiple type of communication (such as satellite) in limited services emergency services.
Regarding claim 7, Sultana with Cisco teaches The method according to claim 1,
However, does not specifically teach wherein the UE is provisioned to communicate via a terrestrial second node and the first node is non-terrestrial.
In the same field of endeavor Idac teaches wherein the UE is provisioned to communicate via a terrestrial second node and the first node is non-terrestrial (On a condition 215 that the gNodeB is not in a non-terrestrial network, the WTRU may transmit a PRACH preamble in element 270, paragraph 93; The method further comprises determining that a gNodeB is a non-terrestrial gNodeB, paragraph 70).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of non-terrestrial communication node with the combined system of Ericsson with Cisco. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because in doing so it can support/provide multiple type of communication (such as satellite and/or cellular) in limited services emergency services.
Regarding claim 12, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 5, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 13, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 7, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Regarding claim 18, the system substantially has same limitations as claim 5, thus the same rejection is applicable.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TANMAY K SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3624. 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
TANMAY K. SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/TANMAY K SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights