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 .
Introduction
This is a response to the applicant’s filing filed on 10/23/2024. In virtue of this filing, claims 1-20 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2024 and 03/09/2026 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 10/23/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The specification submitted on 10/23/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KEE et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021/0329419, hereinafter, “Kee”).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Kee teaches a method and system (see figures 1-3), comprising:
a memory subsystem (see figure 3, server 140, memory 332); and
processing circuitry, the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory subsystem to (see figure 3, processor 328):
join a device to a push-to-talk (PTT) channel (see figures 1 and 4, communication device 110-1-110-n, [0033, 0037, 0048]);
identify prior audio messages transmitted within the PTT channel before the device joined the PTT channel and that are contextually relevant to an ongoing conversation within the PTT channel (see [0019, 0057], monitoring the conversation in the first talk group while the original talk group member joins the second talk group); and
provide, according to a context format, the prior audio messages to the device (see [0057], context format is read on video, image or text form, provide the summary of the monitored conversation to the talk group member when the talk group member switches back to the first talk group).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Kee further teaches identifying the prior audio messages comprises: identifying the prior audio messages based on a context retrieval option associated with the PTT channel (see [0055], generate content for audio communications based on historical talk group conversations (e.g., based on data content previously sent or received by the talk group member in the associated talk groups).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, Kee further teaches providing, according to the context format, the prior audio messages to the device comprises: providing a summary of the prior audio messages to the device (see [0057]).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, Kee further teaches to the context format, the prior audio messages to the device comprises: providing textual representations of the prior audio messages to the device (see [0057], text form at display screen 240).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Kee further teaches identify the prior audio messages comprises to: identify the prior audio messages based on a most recent audio message transmitted in the PPT channel immediately after the device is joined to the PTT channel (see [0057], provide the conversation in first group to the talk group member when the talk group member switches back to the first talk group).
Regarding claim 17, Kee further teaches the prior audio messages is identified based on a context retrieval option associated with a user of the device (see [0055], generate content for audio communications based on historical talk group conversations (e.g., based on data content previously sent or received by the talk group member in the associated talk groups).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEE et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021/0329419, hereinafter, “Kee”) in view of Lenchik et al. (US Patent No.: 5,251,327, hereinafter, “Lenchik”).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Kee disclosed invention, but fails to teach time duration. However, Lenchik teaches time duration (see col.4, ln.62-68, col.5, ln.1-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lenchik into view of Kee in order to provides the operator with an ability to monitor and assist any user of a communication unit within the particular communication group as suggested by Lenchik at col.1, ln.28-31.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEE et al. (US Pub. No.: 2021/0329419, hereinafter, “Kee”) in view of Dahl et al. (US Patent No.: 10,425,367, hereinafter, “Dakl”).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Kee teaches audio messages transmitted during a session of the PTT channel (see [0019, 0057]), Kee fails to teach identifying a list of tags based on messages transmitted during a session; and providing the list of tags to the device. However, Dakl teaches identifying a list of tags based on messages transmitted during a session; and providing the list of tags to the device (see col.10, ln.6-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Dakl into view of Kee in order to provide the quick access and selecting the tag.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art made of record fails to clearly teach or fairly suggest the feature of associating respective one or more tags with the prior audio messages; and identifying at least one tag for the ongoing conversation, wherein identifying the prior audio messages comprises: identifying the prior audio messages based on a comparison of the at least one tag and the one or more tags.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. 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.
/TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights