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 .
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6, 10, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (TW 202230310; document cited by applicant) in view of Hundscheidt et al (US 2005/0007969) or Andersen et al (US 2009/0130972).
Regarding independent claim 1, Guo teaches a system for informing a search and rescue team, comprising: the at least one multicast core is configured to: control the at least one multicast radio access network to multicast a wake-up signal via the at least one multicast channel of the multicast network based upon the emergency information received via the at least one network interface; receive via the at least one uplink channel a response signal to the wake-up signal and to process information contained in the response signal; generate data based on the information contained in the response signal; and forward the data generated to the search and rescue team (see claims 1-3, information from mobile of victims such as their position is sent to a server and forwarded to search and rescue teams). Guo fails to teach at least one multicast core; at least one multicast radio access network connected with the at least one multicast core; at least one network interface connected to the at least one multicast core; at least one multicast channel via which the multicast radio access network multicasts a signal within a multicast network; at least one uplink channel, wherein the at least one network interface is configured to forward emergency information to the at least one multicast core. However, a mobile network receives disaster information and awakens victim’s mobile devices, which in turn send location information of victims to the mobile network is notoriously well-known in the art of digital communications. For example, Hundscheidt or Andersen, from the same field of endeavor, teaches such network. See Hundscheidt: fig. 1, [0018] and [0020] or Andersen: fig. 1, [0025], [0026] and [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Guo by employing the teachings as taught by Hundscheidt or Andersen in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding independent claim 15, the claim is a corresponding method claim and recites similar subject matter to claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Guo as modified by Hundscheidt or Andersen further teaches at least one user equipment being part of the multicast network, wherein the at least one user equipment is configured to receive the wake-up signal from the multicast radio access network, and wherein the at least one user equipment is configured to transmit the response signal via the at least one uplink channel. See Guo: claims 1-3; Hundscheidt: fig. 1, [0018] and [0020] and Andersen: fig. 1, [0025], [0026] and [0029].
Regarding dependent claim 3, Guo as modified by Hundscheidt or Andersen further teaches wherein the at least one user equipment is configured to respond data that is indicative of position, health state, and/or environmental data. See Guo: claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Guo as modified by Hundscheidt or Andersen further teaches a radio receiver. See Guo: claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Guo as modified by Hundscheidt or Andersen further teaches a narrowband IoT receiver. See Guo: claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Guo as modified by Hundscheidt or Andersen further teaches wherein the at least one uplink channel is not part of the multicast network and/or wherein the at least one uplink channel is part of a ultra-wide band network, a mobile cellular network, a satellite communication, a narrowband IoT communication, or a Wi-Fi communication. See Guo: claims 1-3; Hundscheidt: fig. 1, [0018] and [0020] and Andersen: fig. 1, [0025], [0026] and [0029].
Regarding dependent claim 10, Guo as modified by Hundscheidt or Andersen further teaches wherein the system is configured to select a network available via which the data generated is forwarded to the search and rescue team. See Guo: claims 1-3; Hundscheidt: fig. 1, [0018] and [0020] and Andersen: fig. 1, [0025], [0026] and [0029].
Regarding dependent claim 12, Guo as modified by Hundscheidt or Andersen further teaches a processing circuit that is configured to analyze the information contained in the response signal. See Guo: claims 1-3; Hundscheidt: fig. 1, [0018] and [0020] and Andersen: fig. 1, [0025], [0026] and [0029].
Regarding dependent claim 16, Guo as modified by Hundscheidt or Andersen further teaches wherein at least one user equipment receives the wake-up signal from the multicast radio access network, and wherein the at least one user equipment transmits the response signal via the at least one uplink channel. See Guo: claims 1-3; Hundscheidt: fig. 1, [0018] and [0020] and Andersen: fig. 1, [0025], [0026] and [0029].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are 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.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References Maeder et al (US 2020/0187232) and Ma et al (US 2022/0377508) are cited because they are pertinent to the method and apparatus for multicast networking. However, none of the cited references teaches or suggests the further arrangements as recited in the dependent claims 7-9, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights