DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
1. Claims 2, 4, 5, and 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Claim 2 is suggested to read as the following: “The system according to claim 1, wherein the application client provides the application server with additional alert information, comprising: terminal and Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) information, IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) information, precise device location, or an IMSI (International Mobile Subscriber Identity)
b. Claim 4 is suggested to read as the following: “The system according to claim 1, wherein the application client has functionality to access an alert history log of the mobile telecommunications terminal, and forward to the application server, a copy of emergency alerts previously received by the mobile terminal.”
c. Claim 5 is suggested to read as the following: “The system according to claim 1, wherein authorities, mobile network operators or other third parties can submit, to the application server issued by them or other parties, emergency alerts using machine-to-machine, man-to-machine or another interface.”
d. Claim 9 is suggested to read as the following: “The system according to claim 1, wherein the application client or a third party can receive emergency cell broadcast alerts using a subscription service offered by the application server and comprising a subscription option to receive the alerts of at least one user, or at least one geographic area, or at least one mobile network operator, or at least one country, or at least one other selected alert criteria.”
e. Claim 10 is suggested to read as the following: “The system according to claim 9, wherein the application server provides application clients with zones, for example, high-risk flood zones, or zones with potential dam failures, or earthquake zones, or zones with outage of electric power, and users have the ability to select and receive alerts issued for these zones.”
f. Claim 11 is suggested to read as the following: “The system according to claim 2, wherein the application client communicates to the application server an exact time the emergency alert was received by providing a terminal time and a deviation of
g. Claim 12 is suggested to read as the following: “The system according to claim 11, wherein broadcast entities, mobile network operators, or authorities can measure accurately for each issued emergency alert delivery time and a count of reached population,
h. Claim 13 is suggested to read as the following: The system according to claim 1, wherein the application client of a mobile telecommunications terminal located in an emergency alert target area, after receiving the emergency alert, can start to proactively report the mobile terminal location for a given period, allowing monitoring of individual and crowd movement such as evacuation trend.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 3 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim is narrative in form and replete with indefinite language including the phrase “such sharing may require mutual authorization from the users…”. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-13 are allowable over prior art references (if above objections and 112 rejection are overcome).
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kwon et al. (US 2008/0111699) discloses identifying broadcasted emergency alerts.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS B ODOM whose telephone number is (571)272-3046. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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.
/CURTIS B ODOM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 July 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights