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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: the acronym for “push-to-talk” is “PTT” but is written as “PPT” in both ¶ [0001] and ¶ [0135]. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 8 is directed to a statutory category, a method, system, computer program product.
Step 2A: Prong 1: the claim limitations, “... meshing the received portions of the prior context to form a coherent sequence of messages ...” are Mental Processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional elements, “A device, comprising: a memory module; and processing circuitry, the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to …” are implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform/apply an abstract idea. It invokes a generic computer merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements, “... requesting prior context from other devices in the PTT channel, wherein the prior context comprises messages related to the ongoing conversation and transmitted before the device joined the PTT channel; receiving portions of the prior context from multiple other devices in the PTT channel ...” are merely data gathering recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity) (MPEP § 2106.0 (g)). The additional element, “... outputting the coherent sequence of messages at the device” is merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity) (MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements, “... joining a PTT channel during an ongoing conversation ...” are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
When considered a whole, the claimed invention fails to recite any improvement in any technology or technical field (MPEP § 2106.05(a)) or recite any meaningful limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The limitations are no more than mere automation of a mental process to “... meshing the received portions of the prior context to form a coherent sequence of messages ...” using a generic computer as a tool. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements do no more than automate the meshing using the computer components as a tool. Therefore, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception/abstract idea, which do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
Under Step 2B, besides the additional elements already analyzed under MPEP § 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g), and 2106.05(h) (the same analysis as that of Step 2A, Prong 2), additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) in step 2A, Prong 2, are re-evaluated in Step 2B as the following to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities.
Specifically, the claim limitations, “...requesting prior context from other devices in the PTT channel, wherein the prior context comprises messages related to the ongoing conversation and transmitted before the device joined the PTT channel; receiving portions of the prior context from multiple other devices in the PTT channel; ...” are simply receiving or transmitting data over a network, which are mere judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: … Receiving or transmitting data over a network …”). The additional element, “outputting the coherent sequence of messages at the device” is merely outputting the result of the mental process. The Examiner takes Official Notice that outputting a processing result by a device to the user is well-known. Therefore, outputting the processing result, the coherent sequence of messages, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible.
Independent claim 1 is the method employed by the device of claim 8 and recites similar claim limitations as claim 8 and thus is not eligible.
Independent claim 15 is the memory employed by the device of claim 8 and recites similar claim limitations as claim 8 and thus is not eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 fail to recite additional elements that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Specifically:
Dependent claims 2 and 9 recite additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution/post-solution activity) (MPEP § 2106.05 (g)) and judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Specifically, “storing the coherent sequence of messages in a local memory of the device” is simply storing the result of a computation as an insignificant post-solution activity. Under Step 2B analysis, the act of storing information in memory is a judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: … Storing and retrieving information in memory …”).
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 16 recite additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution/post-solution activity) (MPEP § 2106.05 (g)) and judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Specifically, “receive a request … for the prior context; and transmit the coherent sequence of messages” is a simple request/transmit step that is routine in the art and a necessary step for devices in the system to implement the method (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)(3): “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output).”). Under Step 2B analysis, the act of receiving or transmitting data over a network is a judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: … Receiving or transmitting data over a network …”)
Dependent claims 4, 11, 17, and 18 recite an additional abstract idea directed to Mental Processes, Mathematical Concepts, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Specifically, “arranging the messages in chronological order” and “removing duplicate messages” are both mental processes.
Dependent claim 5 recites both additional elements directed to “apply it” (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and to insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution/post-solution activity) (MPEP § 2106.05 (g)) and judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Regarding the “apply it,” the limitation “converting the coherent sequence of messages from text to speech using a text-to-speech engine” is merely using a computer (“text-to-speech engine”) and applying it merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) “Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process”: “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: … Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer …”). Regarding the extra-solution activity, “outputting the coherent sequence of messages audibly” is merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity). Under Step 2B analysis, the post-solution activity is merely outputting the result of the mental process. As stated previously, the Examiner takes Official Notice that outputting a processing result by a device to the user is well-known. Therefore, outputting the processing result, the audio version of the coherent sequence of messages, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
It should be noted that the use of a “particular machine” can serve as significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), however the claim merely recites “text-to-speech engine” and nothing particular about the engine and thus fall instead into the category of “generic computer”. Without additional details, any machine capable of the claimed steps (converting the text input into the speech to then output) would fall within the claimed “text-to-speech engine” and thus it is a generic term. The applicant could potentially overcome this rejection by amending the claim to further detail the particularities of the engine used.
Dependent claims 6, 13 and 19 recites both additional elements directed to “apply it” (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and to insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution/post-solution activity) (MPEP § 2106.05 (g)) and judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Regarding the “apply it,” the limitation “outputting, at a speed higher than a normal speed, the buffered new messages” (Note that only claim 13 recites this limitation) is merely an outcome and fails to recite how to accomplish it (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished: “The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".”). Regarding the extra-solution activity, the first limitation, “buffering new messages received during the outputting of the coherent sequence of messages” is merely storing data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity). Under Step 2B analysis, the act of storing information in memory is a judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II): “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: … Storing and retrieving information in memory …”). The second extra-solution activity limitation, “outputting, … the buffered new messages after the coherent sequence of messages are output” is merely outputting data and insignificant extra-solution activity (post-solution activity). Under Step 2B analysis, the post-solution activity is merely outputting the stored transmissions. As stated previously, the Examiner takes Official Notice that outputting a processing result by a device to the user is well-known. Therefore, outputting the processing result, the messages that were temporarily stored as a buffer for future transmission, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Dependent claims 7, 14 and 20 recite additional elements directed to “apply it” (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Specifically, the first limitation “enable a user to interact with … messages” recite the idea of user interaction without detailing how the interaction is actually accomplished (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(1): “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they recite no more than an idea of a solution or outcome include: Remotely accessing user-specific information through a mobile interface and pointers to retrieve the information without any description of how the mobile interface and pointers accomplish the result of retrieving previously inaccessible information”). Claim 7 specifies the additional limitation of “… wherein to interact … comprises replaying or skipping”, which is merely invoking a computer to perform an existing process (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2): “Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: … Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer”).
Dependent claim 12 recites additional elements directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution/post-solution activity) (MPEP § 2106.05 (g)) and judicial-recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Specifically, “received in a format that is based on a context format” is merely determining the format of the output (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)(3): “Below are examples of activities that the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity: … Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated …”). Under Step 2B analysis, the act of the transmission format determination is well-known (“RESTful Service Best Practices” by Todd Fredrich: “Another concept must be used to specify the format of the response … the Accept header allows clients to specify the media type (or types) of response they desire or can support. The Content-Type header is used by both clients and servers to indicate the format of the request or response body, respectively.” [Comment: citing the method in a “Best Practices” documentation demonstrates that the technique is well-known.]). Therefore, changing the transmission format, in response to the context format, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication US20070021131A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Laumen”), in view of US Patent US7966368B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Su”), hereinafter referred to as “Laumen-Su”.
Per claim 1, Laumen teaches, “A method implemented by a device in a push-to-talk (PTT) system (¶ [0023]: “In FIG. 1 the radio communication device MS1 is registered … as a new member of the existing PTT group of the previously involved radio communication devices MS2, MS3, MS4.” [Comment: “radio communication device MS1” serves as the device implementing the claimed method; the “radio communication devices MS2, MS3, MS4” serve as the other devices in the channel.]), the method comprising: joining a PTT channel during an ongoing conversation (¶ [0023]: “… the radio communication device MS1 is registered … as a new member of the existing PTT group of the previously involved radio communication devices …”); requesting prior context from other devices in the PTT channel, wherein the prior context comprises messages related to the ongoing conversation and transmitted before the device joined the PTT channel (¶ [0034]: “In the present exemplary embodiment, the operator of the newly entered radio communication device MS1 enters the command … for the first stored conversation total GB1. Simultaneously they select the control command … The choice of this selection or the exercising of this option of a specific control command … for reproducing the conversation total GB1 is transmitted by the radio communication device MS1 with the aid of a control signal SS1 over its air interface to the exchange unit SV.” [Comment: it should be noted that the claim can be read as “the prior context is from the other devices” (shown in the applicant's drawing Figure 7) and as “the request is directed towards the other devices” (shown in the applicant's drawing Figure 8). Therefore, while Lauren only teaches obtaining data from a server rather than directly from other devices, it still teaches the contents of claim 1 under a broad reasonable interpretation of the claim language. Should the applicant wish to amend this claim, it should be noted that the secondary art Su mentioned below incorporates peer-to-peer communication instead, and thus would fall within the second interpretation “request directed towards other devices.”]; ¶ [0037]: “The operator of the radio communication device MS1 would eventually also like to listen to the stored conversation totals GB2 to GB4 …” [Comment: the previous citation of ¶ [0034] displays an exemplary embodiment of request the data from 1 other device, thus let this citation of ¶ [0037] demonstrate that the method was taught for multiple devices.]); receiving portions of the prior context from multiple other devices in the PTT channel (¶ [0034]: “… and transmits the conversation total … over the communication connection I1 by means of an information signal SGB1 to the radio communication device MS1.” [Comment: note the same comments regarding claim interpretation as the “request” portion above.]); … and outputting the … messages at the device (¶ [0023]: “… MS1 has acquainted themselves with the current status of the push-to-talk group discussion PT by listening to the missed conversation totals GB1 to GB4”).”
Laumen further teaches the ability for the late arrival device to request the message received to be altered both in terms of start time and speed of playback (¶ [0028-0032]: “FIG. 2 shows an exemplary display on the display device AZ for four typical control commands SK, AS, TH, TR for influencing the reproduction of the previously issued conversation totals GB1 to GB4 of the three previously participating radio communication devices MS2 to MS4. Individually these are the following control commands: … “total jump” … “play total from beginning” … “increase play tempo” … “reduce play tempo” …”), as well as requesting and receiving multiple messages at once to play them together (¶ [0037]: “The operator of the radio communication device MS1 would eventually also like to listen to the stored conversation totals GB2 to GB4 … then uses information signals SGB2 to SGB4 to transmit the required conversation totals GB2 to GB4 to the radio communication device MS1”), and to have the messages be sorted chronologically (¶ [0020]: “Under the exemplary embodiment, all the conversation totals, i.e. the totals GB1 to GB4 in this case, which have already been issued chronologically, i.e. one after the other, by the users of the radio communication devices MS2, MS3, MS4 involved in the ongoing PTT group discussion …”). However, the altering and concatenating of the message occurs on a server rather than on-device, and thus Laumen does not explicitly teach, “A method implemented by a device …, the method comprising:… meshing the received portions of the prior context to form a coherent sequence of messages; and outputting the coherent sequence of messages at the device.”
Su teaches, “A method implemented by a device in a … system, the method comprising: joining a … channel during an ongoing conversation (Column 18, lines 48-53: “In at least some examples of the invention, this ping data may be used in conjunction with a procedure like that illustrated in FIG. 10 to easily add users as new participants into a session. For example, the procedure of FIG. 10 starts (S1000) when a user enters a network in which a session is taking place.”); requesting prior context from other devices in the … channel (Column 16, lines 6-10: “In this example, messages 700 are broadcast over a peer-to-peer network … As shown, the process starts (S800) when a participant in a session sends a broadcast message 700 that is received by a user listening on the network (S802).”), wherein the prior context comprises messages related to the ongoing conversation and transmitted before the device joined the … channel (Column 18, lines 58-62: “The user's machine can then request the messages it is missing from the message history 910 included with the ping data 900 (S1006) and be brought up to date in the session, e.g., by the procedure described in connection with FIG. 8.”); receiving portions of the prior context from multiple other devices in the … channel (Column 18, lines 58-62: “The user's machine can then request the messages it is missing from the message history 910 included with the ping data 900 (S1006) and be brought up to date in the session, e.g., by the procedure described in connection with FIG. 8.” [Comment: “brought up to date in the session” insinuates that the requested data was properly received.]); meshing the received portions of the prior context to form a coherent sequence of messages (Column 19, lines 49-67: “Systems and methods according to at least some examples of this invention will include protocols and procedures for handling simultaneous, near-simultaneous, and conflicting instructions. Inevitably, in collaborative systems and methods of this type including multiple users independently capable of adding input, some message data transmitted by the various parties will conflict. … This situation can be handled in any suitable manner without departing from the invention. For example, if all workstations in the session are operating on a common network utilizing a common central clock, each message may be stamped with a transmission time stamp based on this central clock, and the order of message processing could be based on this time stamp.”); and outputting the coherent sequence of messages at the device (Column 11, lines 49-51: “Each of FIGS. 5A through 5J illustrate an example electronic whiteboard 500 as it may appear on the display screen of a participant's workstation as message data is exchanged.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the on-device context retrieval message management of Su into the PTT context retrieval system of Laumen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, specifically, combining known methods of communication protocols to yield predictable results, especially given that Laumen and Su are in the same field of endeavor of prior communication context retrieval (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 2, Laumen-Su teaches the method of claim 1.
Laumen does not explicitly teach, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the coherent sequence of messages in a local memory of the device.”
Su further teaches, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the coherent sequence of messages in a local memory of the device (Column 6, lines 43-47: “In another example aspect of the invention, any machine on the subnet and/or any machine that receives incoming message data from a session, even those not actively participating in the session, may receive, log, and maintain the incoming message data.”).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 3 teaches the method of claim 1.
Laumen further teaches, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request from another device in the PTT channel for the prior context (¶ [0034]: “In the present exemplary embodiment, the operator of the newly entered radio communication device MS1 enters the command … for the first stored conversation total GB1. Simultaneously they select the control command … The choice of this selection or the exercising of this option of a specific control command … for reproducing the conversation total GB1 is transmitted by the radio communication device MS1 with the aid of a control signal SS1 over its air interface to the exchange unit SV.”); …”
Laumen further teaches retransmitting the prior context to the requesting device (¶ [0034]: “… and transmits the conversation total … over the communication connection I1 by means of an information signal SGB1 to the radio communication device MS1.”; ¶ [0010]: “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a radio network architecture for executing a push-to-talk group discussion of a number of radio communication devices into which a new user with their radio communication device enters after a delay or re-enters after a pause and wherein information regarding conversation totals already issued are provided …” [Comment: MS1, MS2, MS3 and MS4 are all identical devices and the entire protocol is symmetrical, so the device being capable of receiving the data from other identical devices {as recited in claim 1} is also capable of transmitting said data to the other devices.]), however the claim recites that the device responds with the “coherent sequence of messages” and thus the output of the meshing rather than just the prior context. Thus, Laumen does not explicitly teach, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: … transmitting the coherent sequence of messages to the another device.”
Su further teaches, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a request from another device in the … channel for the prior context (Column 15, lines 18-22: “Assuming that a receiving machine does not have one or more of the messages in the message history 712 of a new message 700, it will wait for the missing message(s) (optionally, sending a request for the message(s), as will be discussed in more detail below).”); and transmitting the coherent sequence of messages to the another device (Column 14 line 66 to column 15 line 2: “Therefore, in accordance with some examples of the invention, an outgoing message like that illustrated in FIG. 7 may include some other type of message history 712.” [Comment: the “message history” serves as the “coherent sequence of messages”, and thus the device can choose to submit the requested missing messages or the sequence.]).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 7, Laumen-Su teaches the method of claim 1.
Laumen further teaches, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: enabling a user to interact with the coherent sequence of messages, wherein to interact with the coherent sequence comprises replaying or skipping (¶ [0028-0030]: “FIG. 2 shows an exemplary display on the display device AZ for four typical control commands SK, AS, TH, TR for influencing the reproduction of the previously issued conversation totals GB1 to GB4 of the three previously participating radio communication devices MS2 to MS4. Individually these are the following control commands: SK = “Total jump”, RE = “Play total from beginning”, …”).”
Per claim 8, Laumen teaches, “A device, comprising: a memory module; and processing circuitry, the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to (Claim 31: “A radio communication device for late-entry of an existing push-to-talk conversation in a network, comprising: a control unit; … a processor, communicatively coupled to the control unit for reproducing missed conversation totals in the device.” [Comment: a “control unit” is generally accepted to contain memory to store instructions.]): join a push-to-talk (PTT) channel during an ongoing conversation (¶ [0023]: “… the radio communication device MS1 is registered … as a new member of the existing PTT group of the previously involved radio communication devices …”); request prior context from other devices in the PTT channel, wherein the prior context comprises messages related to the ongoing conversation and transmitted before the device joined the PTT channel (¶ [0034]: “In the present exemplary embodiment, the operator of the newly entered radio communication device MS1 enters the command … for the first stored conversation total GB1. Simultaneously they select the control command … The choice of this selection or the exercising of this option of a specific control command … for reproducing the conversation total GB1 is transmitted by the radio communication device MS1 with the aid of a control signal SS1 over its air interface to the exchange unit SV.”; ¶ [0037]: “The operator of the radio communication device MS1 would eventually also like to listen to the stored conversation totals GB2 to GB4 …” [Comment: identical comments as for claim 1.]); receive portions of the prior context from multiple other devices in the PTT channel (¶ [0034]: “… and transmits the conversation total … over the communication connection I1 by means of an information signal SGB1 to the radio communication device MS1.” [Comment: identical comments as for claim 1.]); … and output the … messages at the device (¶ [0023]: “… MS1 has acquainted themselves with the current status of the push-to-talk group discussion PT by listening to the missed conversation totals GB1 to GB4”).”
Laumen further teaches the ability for the late arrival device to request the message received to be altered both in terms of start time and speed of playback (¶ [0028-0032]: “FIG. 2 shows an exemplary display on the display device AZ for four typical control commands SK, AS, TH, TR for influencing the reproduction of the previously issued conversation totals GB1 to GB4 of the three previously participating radio communication devices MS2 to MS4. Individually these are the following control commands: … “total jump” … “play total from beginning” … “increase play tempo” … “reduce play tempo” …”), as well as requesting and receiving multiple messages at once to play them together (¶ [0037]: “The operator of the radio communication device MS1 would eventually also like to listen to the stored conversation totals GB2 to GB4 … then uses information signals SGB2 to SGB4 to transmit the required conversation totals GB2 to GB4 to the radio communication device MS1”), and to have the messages be sorted chronologically (¶ [0020]: “Under the exemplary embodiment, all the conversation totals, i.e. the totals GB1 to GB4 in this case, which have already been issued chronologically, i.e. one after the other, by the users of the radio communication devices MS2, MS3, MS4 involved in the ongoing PTT group discussion …”). However, the altering and concatenating of the message occurs on a server rather than on-device, and thus, Laumen does not explicitly teach, “A device, comprising: a memory module; and processing circuitry, the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to: … mesh the received portions of the prior context to form a coherent sequence of messages; and output the coherent sequence of messages at the device.”
Su teaches, “A device, comprising: a memory module; and processing circuitry, the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to (Column 7, lines 41-52: “FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of a general-purpose digital computing environment that can be used to implement various aspects of the present invention. In FIG. 1, a computer 100 includes a processing unit 110, a system memory 120, and a system bus 130 that couples various system components including the system memory 120 to the processing unit 110. … The system memory 120 may include read only memory (ROM) 140 and random access memory (RAM) 150.”): join a … channel during an ongoing conversation (Column 18, lines 48-53: “In at least some examples of the invention, this ping data may be used in conjunction with a procedure like that illustrated in FIG. 10 to easily add users as new participants into a session. For example, the procedure of FIG. 10 starts (S1000) when a user enters a network in which a session is taking place.”); request prior context from other devices in the … channel (Column 16, lines 6-10: “In this example, messages 700 are broadcast over a peer-to-peer network … As shown, the process starts (S800) when a participant in a session sends a broadcast message 700 that is received by a user listening on the network (S802).”), wherein the prior context comprises messages related to the ongoing conversation and transmitted before the device joined the … channel (Column 18, lines 58-62: “The user's machine can then request the messages it is missing from the message history 910 included with the ping data 900 (S1006) and be brought up to date in the session, e.g., by the procedure described in connection with FIG. 8.”); receive portions of the prior context from multiple other devices in the … channel (Column 18, lines 58-62: “The user's machine can then request the messages it is missing from the message history 910 included with the ping data 900 (S1006) and be brought up to date in the session, e.g., by the procedure described in connection with FIG. 8.” [Comment: “brought up to date in the session” insinuates that the requested data was properly received.]); mesh the received portions of the prior context to form a coherent sequence of messages (Column 19, lines 49-67: “Systems and methods according to at least some examples of this invention will include protocols and procedures for handling simultaneous, near-simultaneous, and conflicting instructions. Inevitably, in collaborative systems and methods of this type including multiple users independently capable of adding input, some message data transmitted by the various parties will conflict. … This situation can be handled in any suitable manner without departing from the invention. For example, if all workstations in the session are operating on a common network utilizing a common central clock, each message may be stamped with a transmission time stamp based on this central clock, and the order of message processing could be based on this time stamp.”); and output the coherent sequence of messages at the device (Column 11, lines 49-51: “Each of FIGS. 5A through 5J illustrate an example electronic whiteboard 500 as it may appear on the display screen of a participant's workstation as message data is exchanged.”).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 9, Laumen-Su teaches the device of claim 8.
Laumen does not explicitly teach, “The device of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to: storing the received portions in a local memory of the device.”
Su further teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to: storing the received portions in a local memory of the device (Column 6, lines 43-47: “In another example aspect of the invention, any machine on the subnet and/or any machine that receives incoming message data from a session, even those not actively participating in the session, may receive, log, and maintain the incoming message data.”).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 10 teaches the device of claim 8.
Laumen further teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to: transmitting … to another device in response to receiving a request from the another device in the PTT channel for the prior context (¶ [0034]: “In the present exemplary embodiment, the operator of the newly entered radio communication device MS1 enters the command … for the first stored conversation total GB1. Simultaneously they select the control command … The choice of this selection or the exercising of this option of a specific control command … for reproducing the conversation total GB1 is transmitted by the radio communication device MS1 with the aid of a control signal SS1 over its air interface to the exchange unit SV.”).”
Laumen further teaches retransmitting the prior context to the requesting device (¶ [0034]: “… and transmits the conversation total … over the communication connection I1 by means of an information signal SGB1 to the radio communication device MS1.”; ¶ [0010]: “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a radio network architecture for executing a push-to-talk group discussion of a number of radio communication devices into which a new user with their radio communication device enters after a delay or re-enters after a pause and wherein information regarding conversation totals already issued are provided …” [Comment: MS1, MS2, MS3 and MS4 are all identical devices and the entire protocol is symmetrical, so the device being capable of receiving the data from other identical devices {as recited in claim 1} is also capable of transmitting said data to the other devices.]), however the claim recites that the device responds with the “coherent sequence of messages” and thus the output of the meshing rather than just the prior context. Thus, Laumen does not explicitly teach, “The device of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to: transmitting the coherent sequence of messages …”
Su further teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to: transmitting the coherent sequence of messages to another device (Column 14 line 66 to column 15 line 2: “Therefore, in accordance with some examples of the invention, an outgoing message like that illustrated in FIG. 7 may include some other type of message history 712.” [Comment: the “message history” serves as the “coherent sequence of messages”, and thus the device can choose to submit the requested missing messages or the sequence.]) in response to receiving a request from the another device in the … channel for the prior context (Column 15, lines 18-22: “Assuming that a receiving machine does not have one or more of the messages in the message history 712 of a new message 700, it will wait for the missing message(s) (optionally, sending a request for the message(s), as will be discussed in more detail below).”).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 12, Laumen-Su teaches the device of claim 8.
Laumen does not explicitly teach, “The device of claim 8, wherein the portions of the prior context are received in a format that is based on a context format.”
Su further teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein the portions of the prior context are received in a format that is based on a context format (Column 7, lines 31-35: “Also, while any suitable protocol may be used for sending the message data to the various session participants, in some examples of the invention, the message is broadcast using user datagram protocol (“UDP”) and/or transfer control protocol (“TCP”).” [Comment: let “UDP” and “TCP” serve as “context formats,” as they are formats of which are chosen depending on the context, which would be a broad reasonable interpretation of “context format,” lacking any additional definition.]).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 14, Laumen-Su teaches the device of claim 8.
Laumen further teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to: providing user interface controls that enable a user to interact with the coherent sequence of messages (¶ [0028-0030]: “FIG. 2 shows an exemplary display on the display device AZ for four typical control commands SK, AS, TH, TR for influencing the reproduction of the previously issued conversation totals GB1 to GB4 of the three previously participating radio communication devices MS2 to MS4. Individually these are the following control commands: SK = “Total jump”, RE = “Play total from beginning”, …”).”
Per claim 15, Laumen teaches, “Non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions operable to cause processing circuitry of a device in a push-to-talk (PTT) system to perform operations comprising (Claim 31: “A radio communication device for late-entry of an existing push-to-talk conversation in a network, comprising: a control unit; … a processor, communicatively coupled to the control unit for reproducing missed conversation totals in the device.” [Comment: a “control unit” is generally accepted to contain memory to store instructions.]): joining a PTT channel during an ongoing conversation (¶ [0023]: “… the radio communication device MS1 is registered … as a new member of the existing PTT group of the previously involved radio communication devices …”); requesting prior context from other devices in the PTT channel, wherein the prior context comprises messages related to the ongoing conversation and transmitted before the device joined the PTT channel (¶ [0034]: “In the present exemplary embodiment, the operator of the newly entered radio communication device MS1 enters the command … for the first stored conversation total GB1. Simultaneously they select the control command … The choice of this selection or the exercising of this option of a specific control command … for reproducing the conversation total GB1 is transmitted by the radio communication device MS1 with the aid of a control signal SS1 over its air interface to the exchange unit SV.”; ¶ [0037]: “The operator of the radio communication device MS1 would eventually also like to listen to the stored conversation totals GB2 to GB4 …” [Comment: identical comments as for claim 1.]); receiving portions of the prior context from multiple other devices in the PTT channel (¶ [0034]: “… and transmits the conversation total … over the communication connection I1 by means of an information signal SGB1 to the radio communication device MS1.” [Comment: identical comments as for claim 1.]); … and outputting the … messages at the device (¶ [0023]: “… MS1 has acquainted themselves with the current status of the push-to-talk group discussion PT by listening to the missed conversation totals GB1 to GB4”).”
Laumen further teaches the ability for the late arrival device to request the message received to be altered both in terms of start time and speed of playback (¶ [0028-0032]: “FIG. 2 shows an exemplary display on the display device AZ for four typical control commands SK, AS, TH, TR for influencing the reproduction of the previously issued conversation totals GB1 to GB4 of the three previously participating radio communication devices MS2 to MS4. Individually these are the following control commands: … “total jump” … “play total from beginning” … “increase play tempo” … “reduce play tempo” …”), as well as requesting and receiving multiple messages at once to play them together (¶ [0037]: “The operator of the radio communication device MS1 would eventually also like to listen to the stored conversation totals GB2 to GB4 … then uses information signals SGB2 to SGB4 to transmit the required conversation totals GB2 to GB4 to the radio communication device MS1”), and to have the messages be sorted chronologically (¶ [0020]: “Under the exemplary embodiment, all the conversation totals, i.e. the totals GB1 to GB4 in this case, which have already been issued chronologically, i.e. one after the other, by the users of the radio communication devices MS2, MS3, MS4 involved in the ongoing PTT group discussion …”). However, the altering and concatenating of the message occurs on a server rather than on-device, and thus, Laumen does not explicitly teach, “Non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions operable to cause processing circuitry of a device in a push-to-talk (PTT) system to perform operations comprising: … meshing the received portions of the prior context to form a coherent sequence of messages; and outputting the coherent sequence of messages at the device.”
Su teaches, “Non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions operable to cause processing circuitry of a device in a … system to perform operations comprising (Column 7, lines 41-52: “FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic diagram of a general-purpose digital computing environment that can be used to implement various aspects of the present invention. In FIG. 1, a computer 100 includes a processing unit 110, a system memory 120, and a system bus 130 that couples various system components including the system memory 120 to the processing unit 110. … The system memory 120 may include read only memory (ROM) 140 and random access memory (RAM) 150.”): joining a … channel during an ongoing conversation (Column 18, lines 48-53: “In at least some examples of the invention, this ping data may be used in conjunction with a procedure like that illustrated in FIG. 10 to easily add users as new participants into a session. For example, the procedure of FIG. 10 starts (S1000) when a user enters a network in which a session is taking place.”); requesting prior context from other devices in the … channel (Column 16, lines 6-10: “In this example, messages 700 are broadcast over a peer-to-peer network … As shown, the process starts (S800) when a participant in a session sends a broadcast message 700 that is received by a user listening on the network (S802).”), wherein the prior context comprises messages related to the ongoing conversation and transmitted before the device joined the … channel (Column 18, lines 58-62: “The user's machine can then request the messages it is missing from the message history 910 included with the ping data 900 (S1006) and be brought up to date in the session, e.g., by the procedure described in connection with FIG. 8.”); receiving portions of the prior context from multiple other devices in the … channel (Column 18, lines 58-62: “The user's machine can then request the messages it is missing from the message history 910 included with the ping data 900 (S1006) and be brought up to date in the session, e.g., by the procedure described in connection with FIG. 8.” [Comment: “brought up to date in the session” insinuates that the requested data was properly received.]); meshing the received portions of the prior context to form a coherent sequence of messages (Column 19, lines 49-67: “Systems and methods according to at least some examples of this invention will include protocols and procedures for handling simultaneous, near-simultaneous, and conflicting instructions. Inevitably, in collaborative systems and methods of this type including multiple users independently capable of adding input, some message data transmitted by the various parties will conflict. … This situation can be handled in any suitable manner without departing from the invention. For example, if all workstations in the session are operating on a common network utilizing a common central clock, each message may be stamped with a transmission time stamp based on this central clock, and the order of message processing could be based on this time stamp.”); and outputting the coherent sequence of messages at the device (Column 11, lines 49-51: “Each of FIGS. 5A through 5J illustrate an example electronic whiteboard 500 as it may appear on the display screen of a participant's workstation as message data is exchanged.”).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 16 teaches the memory of claim 15.
Laumen further teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting … to another device, in response to a request received from the another device in the PTT channel for the prior context. (¶ [0034]: “In the present exemplary embodiment, the operator of the newly entered radio communication device MS1 enters the command … for the first stored conversation total GB1. Simultaneously they select the control command … The choice of this selection or the exercising of this option of a specific control command … for reproducing the conversation total GB1 is transmitted by the radio communication device MS1 with the aid of a control signal SS1 over its air interface to the exchange unit SV.”).”
Laumen further teaches retransmitting the prior context to the requesting device (¶ [0034]: “… and transmits the conversation total … over the communication connection I1 by means of an information signal SGB1 to the radio communication device MS1.”; ¶ [0010]: “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a radio network architecture for executing a push-to-talk group discussion of a number of radio communication devices into which a new user with their radio communication device enters after a delay or re-enters after a pause and wherein information regarding conversation totals already issued are provided …” [Comment: MS1, MS2, MS3 and MS4 are all identical devices and the entire protocol is symmetrical, so the device being capable of receiving the data from other identical devices {as recited in claim 1} is also capable of transmitting said data to the other devices.]), however the claim recites that the device responds with the “coherent sequence of messages” and thus the output of the meshing rather than just the prior context. Thus, Laumen does not explicitly teach, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting the coherent sequence of messages …”
Su further teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting the coherent sequence of messages to another device (Column 14 line 66 to column 15 line 2: “Therefore, in accordance with some examples of the invention, an outgoing message like that illustrated in FIG. 7 may include some other type of message history 712.” [Comment: the “message history” serves as the “coherent sequence of messages”, and thus the device can chose to submit the requested missing messages or the sequence.]), in response to a request received from the another device in the … channel for the prior context (Column 15, lines 18-22: “Assuming that a receiving machine does not have one or more of the messages in the message history 712 of a new message 700, it will wait for the missing message(s) (optionally, sending a request for the message(s), as will be discussed in more detail below).”).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 20, Laumen-Su teaches the device of claim 15.
Laumen further teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: providing user interface controls that enable a user to interact with the coherent sequence of messages (¶ [0028-0030]: “FIG. 2 shows an exemplary display on the display device AZ for four typical control commands SK, AS, TH, TR for influencing the reproduction of the previously issued conversation totals GB1 to GB4 of the three previously participating radio communication devices MS2 to MS4. Individually these are the following control commands: SK = “Total jump”, RE = “Play total from beginning”, …”).”
Claims 4, 11, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laumen-Su as applied to claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, 14-16 and 20 above, and further in view of US Patent US12124488B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Rozenbaum”).
Per claim 4, Laumen-Su teaches the method of claim 1.
Laumen does not explicitly teach, “The method of claim 1, wherein meshing the received portions of the prior context comprises: arranging the messages in chronological order based on their timestamps; and removing duplicate messages from the messages.”
Su further teaches, “The method of claim 1, wherein meshing the received portions of the prior context comprises: arranging the messages in chronological order based on their timestamps (Column 19, lines 55-67: “For example, if all workstations in the session are operating on a common network utilizing a common central clock, each message may be stamped with a transmission time stamp based on this central clock, and the order of message processing could be based on this time stamp.”); …”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Laumen-Su doesn’t further teach, “… wherein meshing the received portions of the prior context comprises: … removing duplicate messages from the messages.”
Rozenbaum teaches, “The method of claim 1, wherein meshing the received portions of the prior context comprises: arranging the messages in chronological order based on their timestamps (Column 5, lines 53-60: “In one or more embodiments, the chat message restore request identifies multiple missing chat messages of the chat to be restored on the edge device, and the receiving includes receiving at the edge device from the multiple other edge devices multiple copies of one or more chat messages of the chat that were missing, where chat messages of the chat received at the edge device from the multiple other edge devices are sorted by timestamp.”); and removing duplicate messages from the messages (Column 6, lines 4-9: “In one embodiment, the computer-implemented method further includes de-duplicating, at the edge device, duplicate chat messages of the chat received from the multiple other edge devices to obtain de-duplicated chat messages of the chat, and presenting by the edge device the de-duplicated chat messages of the chat to the user.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the message management of Rozenbaum into the PTT system of Laumen-Su. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, specifically, combining known methods of message management to yield predictable results, especially given that Laumen-Su and Rozenbaum are in the same field of endeavor of prior communication context retrieval (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 11, Laumen-Su teaches the device of claim 4.
Laumen does not explicitly teach, “The device of claim 8, wherein to mesh the received portions of the prior context comprises to: arrange the messages in chronological order; and remove duplicate messages.”
Su further teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein to mesh the received portions of the prior context comprises to: arrange the messages in chronological order (Column 19, lines 55-67: “For example, if all workstations in the session are operating on a common network utilizing a common central clock, each message may be stamped with a transmission time stamp based on this central clock, and the order of message processing could be based on this time stamp.”); …”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Laumen-Su doesn’t further teach, “The device of claim 8, wherein to mesh the received portions of the prior context comprises to: … remove duplicate messages.”
Rozenbaum teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein to mesh the received portions of the prior context comprises to: arrange the messages in chronological order (Column 5, lines 53-60: “In one or more embodiments, the chat message restore request identifies multiple missing chat messages of the chat to be restored on the edge device, and the receiving includes receiving at the edge device from the multiple other edge devices multiple copies of one or more chat messages of the chat that were missing, where chat messages of the chat received at the edge device from the multiple other edge devices are sorted by timestamp.”); and remove duplicate messages (Column 6, lines 4-9: “In one embodiment, the computer-implemented method further includes de-duplicating, at the edge device, duplicate chat messages of the chat received from the multiple other edge devices to obtain de-duplicated chat messages of the chat, and presenting by the edge device the de-duplicated chat messages of the chat to the user.”).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Rozenbaum as stated for claim 4 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 17, Laumen-Su teaches the memory of claim 15.
Laumen does not explicitly teach, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein meshing the received portions of the prior context comprises: arranging the messages in chronological order based on their timestamps; and removing duplicate messages.”
Su further teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein meshing the received portions of the prior context comprises: arranging the messages in chronological order based on their timestamps (Column 19, lines 55-67: “For example, if all workstations in the session are operating on a common network utilizing a common central clock, each message may be stamped with a transmission time stamp based on this central clock, and the order of message processing could be based on this time stamp.”); …”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Laumen-Su doesn’t further teach, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein meshing the received portions of the prior context comprises: … removing duplicate messages.”
Rozenbaum teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein meshing the received portions of the prior context comprises: arranging the messages in chronological order based on their timestamps (Column 5, lines 53-60: “In one or more embodiments, the chat message restore request identifies multiple missing chat messages of the chat to be restored on the edge device, and the receiving includes receiving at the edge device from the multiple other edge devices multiple copies of one or more chat messages of the chat that were missing, where chat messages of the chat received at the edge device from the multiple other edge devices are sorted by timestamp.”); and removing duplicate messages (Column 6, lines 4-9: “In one embodiment, the computer-implemented method further includes de-duplicating, at the edge device, duplicate chat messages of the chat received from the multiple other edge devices to obtain de-duplicated chat messages of the chat, and presenting by the edge device the de-duplicated chat messages of the chat to the user.”).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Rozenbaum as stated for claim 4 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 18, Laumen-Su teaches the memory of claim 15.
Laumen does not explicitly teach, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the coherent sequence of messages is a chronologically sequenced and de-duplicated set of messages.”
Su further teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the coherent sequence of messages is a chronologically sequenced (Column 19, lines 55-67: “For example, if all workstations in the session are operating on a common network utilizing a common central clock, each message may be stamped with a transmission time stamp based on this central clock, and the order of message processing could be based on this time stamp.”) …”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Su as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Laumen-Su doesn’t further teach, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the coherent sequence of messages is a … de-duplicated set of messages.”
Rozenbaum teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the coherent sequence of messages is a chronologically sequenced (Column 5, lines 53-60: “In one or more embodiments, the chat message restore request identifies multiple missing chat messages of the chat to be restored on the edge device, and the receiving includes receiving at the edge device from the multiple other edge devices multiple copies of one or more chat messages of the chat that were missing, where chat messages of the chat received at the edge device from the multiple other edge devices are sorted by timestamp.”) and de-duplicated set of messages (Column 6, lines 4-9: “In one embodiment, the computer-implemented method further includes de-duplicating, at the edge device, duplicate chat messages of the chat received from the multiple other edge devices to obtain de-duplicated chat messages of the chat, and presenting by the edge device the de-duplicated chat messages of the chat to the user.”).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Rozenbaum as stated for claim 4 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laumen-Su as applied to claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, 14-16 and 20 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication US20070155415-A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Sheehy”).
Per claim 5, Laumen-Su teaches the method of claim 1.
Laumen further teaches, “The method of claim 1, wherein outputting the coherent sequence of messages comprises: … outputting the coherent sequence of messages audibly (¶ [0023]: “… MS1 has acquainted themselves with the current status of the push-to-talk group discussion PT by listening to the missed conversation totals GB1 to GB4”).”
Laumen-Su doesn’t further teach, “The method of claim 1, wherein outputting the coherent sequence of messages comprises: converting the coherent sequence of messages from text to speech using a text-to-speech engine …”
Sheehy teaches, “The method of claim 1, wherein outputting the coherent sequence of messages comprises: converting the coherent sequence of messages from text to speech using a text-to-speech engine; and outputting the coherent sequence of messages audibly (¶ [0032]: “Referring to step 316, at least one group member plays back at least a portion of the recorded PTT group call typically on his or her PTT communication device. This may be accomplished by, for example, … transmits the recorded PTT group call … to the PTT communication device, typically as a series of audio messages streamed with textual metadata associated with each audio message. All or a portion of the textual metadata can be displayed on a display of the device. Alternately or additionally, the textual metadata can be converted to speech using a text-to-speech feature of the device. The PTT communication device plays the audio clips of the recorded PTT group call line-by-line through the speaker of the PTT communication device and displays non-audio messages and metadata on the display of the PTT communication device.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the message output methodology of Sheehy into the PTT system of Laumen-Su. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, specifically, combining known methods of message output to users to yield predictable results, especially given that Laumen-Su and Sheehy are in the same field of endeavor of prior communication context retrieval, specifically within PTT systems (KSR(A), MPEP § 2143).
Claims 6, 13 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laumen-Su as applied to claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, 14-16 and 20 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication US20040190700A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Cutaia”).
Per claim 6, Laumen-Su teaches the method of claim 1.
Laumen further teaches receiving new messages during the playback of previous messages and handling the proper calculations involved (¶ [0025]: “The calculation can also, where necessary, include the time which will elapse for the additional conversation totals such as for example GB5, GB6 which will arrive while the stored conversation totals are being played. … In particular, after each arrival of a new conversation total such as GB5, GB6 … the overall playing time is updated and then signalled to the newly participating radio communication device MS1.”).
However, Laumen-Su doesn’t explicitly teach, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: buffering new messages received during the outputting of the coherent sequence of messages; and outputting the buffered new messages after the coherent sequence of messages are output.”
Cutaia teaches, “The method of claim 1, further comprising: buffering new messages received during the outputting of the coherent sequence of messages; and outputting the buffered new messages after the coherent sequence of messages are output (¶ [0019]: “According to another embodiment, replay module 18 provides a “conference buffering” service for one or more on-going conferences. For this service, replay module 18 buffers some portion of a conference audio stream while a conference is in progress. For example, replay module 18 may buffer the immediately preceding five minutes of a conference audio stream. Participants of the conference may then access and replay this buffered audio. Thus, for example, if a conference participant steps out or for any other reason misses portions of a conference, that participant can request a replay of some portions of buffered conference audio. In response to the request, replay module 18 may replay a predetermined amount of buffered audio or an amount indicated by the request. Using this technique, a conference participant can access missed portions of conference audio without first providing an on-hold indication. Also, during playback of buffered audio, replay module 18 may accelerate the speed of the audio playback.”; ¶ [0041]: “While not explicitly shown in the flowchart, replay module 18 continues to buffer conference audio while the performing the accelerated playback.” [Comment: Cutaia treats the output as a continuous flow and thus buffers new messages by adding it to the output sequence, which is functionally identical to the claimed limitation.]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the buffering of new messages of Cutaia into the PTT system of Laumen-Su. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, specifically, use of a continuous buffer of new messages to catch up on missed conversation as taught by Cutaia to improve the PTT context retrieval system as taught by Laumen-Su in the same way (KSR(C), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 13, Laumen-Su teaches the device of claim 8.
Laumen further teaches receiving new messages during the playback of previous messages and handling the proper calculations involved (¶ [0025]: “The calculation can also, where necessary, include the time which will elapse for the additional conversation totals such as for example GB5, GB6 which will arrive while the stored conversation totals are being played. … In particular, after each arrival of a new conversation total such as GB5, GB6 … the overall playing time is updated and then signalled to the newly participating radio communication device MS1.”).
However, Laumen-Su doesn’t explicitly teach, “The device of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to: buffering new messages received during the outputting of the coherent sequence of messages; and outputting, at a speed higher than a normal speed, the buffered new messages after the coherent sequence of messages are output.”
Cutaia teaches, “The device of claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry configured to execute instructions stored in the memory module to: buffering new messages received during the outputting of the coherent sequence of messages; and outputting, at a speed higher than a normal speed, the buffered new messages after the coherent sequence of messages are output (¶ [0019]: “According to another embodiment, replay module 18 provides a “conference buffering” service for one or more on-going conferences. For this service, replay module 18 buffers some portion of a conference audio stream while a conference is in progress. For example, replay module 18 may buffer the immediately preceding five minutes of a conference audio stream. Participants of the conference may then access and replay this buffered audio. Thus, for example, if a conference participant steps out or for any other reason misses portions of a conference, that participant can request a replay of some portions of buffered conference audio. In response to the request, replay module 18 may replay a predetermined amount of buffered audio or an amount indicated by the request. Using this technique, a conference participant can access missed portions of conference audio without first providing an on-hold indication. Also, during playback of buffered audio, replay module 18 may accelerate the speed of the audio playback.”; ¶ [0041]: “While not explicitly shown in the flowchart, replay module 18 continues to buffer conference audio while the performing the accelerated playback.” [Comment: Cutaia treats the output as a continuous flow and thus buffers new messages by adding it to the output sequence, which is functionally identical to the claimed limitation.]).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Cutaia as stated for claim 6 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(C), MPEP § 2143).
Per claim 19, Laumen-Su teaches the memory of claim 15.
Laumen further teaches receiving new messages during the playback of previous messages and handling the proper calculations involved (¶ [0025]: “The calculation can also, where necessary, include the time which will elapse for the additional conversation totals such as for example GB5, GB6 which will arrive while the stored conversation totals are being played. … In particular, after each arrival of a new conversation total such as GB5, GB6 … the overall playing time is updated and then signalled to the newly participating radio communication device MS1.”).
However, Laumen-Su doesn’t explicitly teach, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: buffering, before outputting the coherent sequence of messages, new messages received during the outputting of the coherent sequence of messages.”
Cutaia teaches, “The non-transitory computer readable media of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: buffering, before outputting the coherent sequence of messages, new messages received during the outputting of the coherent sequence of messages (¶ [0019]: “According to another embodiment, replay module 18 provides a “conference buffering” service for one or more on-going conferences. For this service, replay module 18 buffers some portion of a conference audio stream while a conference is in progress. For example, replay module 18 may buffer the immediately preceding five minutes of a conference audio stream. Participants of the conference may then access and replay this buffered audio. Thus, for example, if a conference participant steps out or for any other reason misses portions of a conference, that participant can request a replay of some portions of buffered conference audio. In response to the request, replay module 18 may replay a predetermined amount of buffered audio or an amount indicated by the request. Using this technique, a conference participant can access missed portions of conference audio without first providing an on-hold indication. Also, during playback of buffered audio, replay module 18 may accelerate the speed of the audio playback.”; ¶ [0041]: “While not explicitly shown in the flowchart, replay module 18 continues to buffer conference audio while the performing the accelerated playback.” [Comment: Cutaia treats the output as a continuous flow and thus buffers new messages by adding it to the output sequence, which is functionally identical to the claimed limitation.]).”
Please note that this is the same communication protocol teaching of Cutaia as stated for claim 6 above, and thus the same motivation apply (KSR(C), MPEP § 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE PAUL JEAN DIXNEUF whose telephone number is (571)270-5794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/ALEXANDRE PAUL JEAN DIXNEUF/Examiner, Art Unit 2631
/HANNAH S WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights