DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 05/15/2026. Claims 1-30 are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s benefit claim is hereby acknowledged of the U.S patent application No. 19/287,882, filed August 01, 2025, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application No. 18/215,546, filed June 28, 2023, which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application No. 17/700,069, filed March 21, 2022, and further claims priority to U.S. provisional patent application No. 63/210,631, filed June 15, 2021, which papers have been placed on record in the file.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-12 and 23-30 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/18/2026.
Claims 1-12 and 23-30 are withdrawn, with traverse, from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/18/2026.
The traversal is on the grounds that the search would not be an undue burden. This is not found persuasive. The examiner has revisited the non-elected group and continues to believe that these are drawn into separate groups which would require additional searches and examination, thus resulting in an undue burden. The requirement is still deemed proper and therefore made FINAL.
The claim status is as follows:
Pending claims: 1-30.
Withdrawn claims (with traverse): 1-12 and 23-30.
Claims examined herein: 13-22.
Notes on Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “one or more communication authorization systems configured to process passenger-associated authorization credentials associated with passenger-operated portable electronic communication devices; one or more transportation-provider-managed communication governance systems configured to selectively authorize, synchronize, prioritize, monetize, meter, restrict, suspend, revoke, terminate, interpret, render, allocate network resources to, or control communication sessions associated with the passenger-operated portable electronic communication devices; one or more communication synchronization systems configured to synchronize communication sessions operating across browser-based communication systems, conferencing systems, enterprise collaboration systems, telehealth communication systems, or distributed cloud communication systems; one or more accessibility communication rendering systems configured to generate synchronized interpreted speech outputs, synchronized caption outputs, synthesized speech outputs, regenerated speech outputs, textual outputs, browser-based communication outputs, visual accessibility outputs, audio accessibility outputs, multilingual accessibility outputs, or synchronized multimodal accessibility outputs; and one or more network communication systems configured to establish real-time communication sessions between authorized passenger-operated portable electronic communication devices and one or more remote communication systems.”, in claim 13, “wherein the communication authorization systems comprise tokenized communication authorization systems configured to generate encrypted communication authorization tokens associated with passenger communication sessions” in claim 16, “wherein the transportation-provider-managed communication governance systems comprise administrative override systems configured to remotely terminate passenger communication sessions.” in claim 17, “further comprising quality-of-service communication prioritization systems configured to prioritize conferencing communication traffic,” in claim 18, “further comprising communication monetization systems configured to associate communication charges with passenger authorization classifications” in claim 19, and “further comprising communication logging systems configured to maintain communication authorization records” in claim 20.
Because these claims limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 13 and 16-20 are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Such systems are being described by at least the drawing FIG. 1 and paragraphs [0102] to [0104] of the description.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites, “allocate network resources to”.
Should be “allocate network resources”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations "one or more communication authorization systems configured to process passenger-associated authorization credentials associated with passenger-operated portable electronic communication devices; one or more transportation-provider-managed communication governance systems configured to selectively authorize, synchronize, prioritize, monetize, meter, restrict, suspend, revoke, terminate, interpret, render, allocate network resources to, or control communication sessions associated with the passenger-operated portable electronic communication devices; one or more communication synchronization systems configured to synchronize communication sessions operating across browser-based communication systems, conferencing systems, enterprise collaboration systems, telehealth communication systems, or distributed cloud communication systems; one or more accessibility communication rendering systems configured to generate synchronized interpreted speech outputs, synchronized caption outputs, synthesized speech outputs, regenerated speech outputs, textual outputs, browser-based communication outputs, visual accessibility outputs, audio accessibility outputs, multilingual accessibility outputs, or synchronized multimodal accessibility outputs; and one or more network communication systems configured to establish real-time communication sessions between authorized passenger-operated portable electronic communication devices and one or more remote communication systems.” recited in the claim are unclear which render the claims indefinite.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, these limitations are being interpreted as being intended uses, which render the claimed system as a whole being interpreted as being an intended use because the claim does not recite a clear function or application of the claimed system, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claims 16-20, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same reasons as claim 13.
Regarding dependent claims 14-22, the dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency from the rejected claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 13-15, 19-20 and 22, are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being unpatentable over Lemond et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0,133,705 A1, referred to as Lemond).
Regarding claim13, Lemond teaches:
A transportation-provider-managed multimodal communication system (Lemond: Abstract, “The Customized Electronic Services Delivery System provides customized electronic services to passengers who are located onboard an aircraft by storing data indicative of a plurality of electronic services that are available to passengers who are located onboard an aircraft, as well as data indicative of preferences of passengers for the plurality of electronic services.”; Fig. 3; ¶0039- ¶ 0040), comprising:
an onboard communication infrastructure operating within a transportation-provider-managed communication environment and comprising at least one onboard wireless communication network (Lemond: Abstract, “Once a correspondence is made between the electronic services and an identified passenger, the Customized Electronic Services Delivery System advises the passenger of the availability of the customized services and establishes wireless communications between the passenger's electronic device and the selected electronic service.”; Fig. 2, Item 102; ¶ 0032, “FIG. 2 illustrates the architecture of a typical aircraft-based network for passengers' wireless devices as embodied in a multi-passenger commercial aircraft 200. This system comprises a plurality of elements used to implement a communication backbone that is used to enable wireless communication for a plurality of wireless communication devices of diverse nature. The aircraft-based network for passengers' wireless devices comprises a Local Area Network 206 that includes a radio frequency communication system 201 that uses a spread spectrum paradigm and having a short range of operation. This network 206 supports both circuit-switched and packet-switched connections from passengers' wireless devices 221-224 and interconnects the communications of these passengers' wireless devices 221-224 via a gateway transceiver or transceivers 210 to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) 144 and other destinations”);
one or more communication authorization systems configured to process passenger-associated authorization credentials associated with passenger-operated portable electronic communication devices (Lemond: ¶ 0038, “On each aircraft, the passenger access to electronic communications typically is regulated via a passenger's wireless device registration process, where each electronic device must be identified, authenticated, and authorized to receive service. Since the aircraft is a self-contained environment with respect to the wireless communications between the passengers' wireless devices and the airborne wireless network extant in the aircraft, all communications are regulated by the network controller.”);
one or more transportation-provider-managed communication governance systems configured to selectively authorize, synchronize, prioritize, monetize, meter, restrict, suspend, revoke, terminate, interpret, render, allocate network resources to, or control communication sessions associated with the passenger-operated portable electronic communication devices (Lemond: Fig. 3 and Fig. 5; ¶ 0038, “A “splash screen” is delivered to the passenger on their wireless device to announce entry into the wireless network portal. Once this is established, the network controller transmits a set of login displays to the passenger's wireless device to enable the passenger to identify themselves and validate their identity (if the passenger's wireless device is not equipped to automatically perform these tasks via a smart client which automatically logs the passenger into the network). As a result of this process, the passenger's wireless device is provided with a unique electronic identification (IP address), and the network can respond to the passenger's wireless device without further administrative overhead. The authentication process may include the use of security processes, such as a password, scan of a passenger immutable characteristic (fingerprint, retina scan, etc.), and the like.”; ¶ 0039);
one or more communication synchronization systems configured to synchronize communication sessions operating across browser-based communication systems, conferencing systems, enterprise collaboration systems, telehealth communication systems, or distributed cloud communication systems (Lemond: Fig. 1; ¶ 0027- ¶0031, “The Air-to-Ground Network 2 shown in FIG. 1 is clearly one that is based on wireless communications (radio frequency or optical) between the ground-based cellular communications network 101 and the passengers' wireless devices that are located in the aircraft, with the preferred approach being that of a radio frequency connection. This radio frequency connection takes on the form of a cellular topology where typically more than one cell describes the geographic footprint or coverage area of the composite Air-To-Ground Network 2. The air-to ground connection carries both passenger communications traffic and native network signaling traffic.”);
one or more accessibility communication rendering systems configured to generate synchronized interpreted speech outputs, synchronized caption outputs, synthesized speech outputs, regenerated speech outputs, textual outputs, browser-based communication outputs, visual accessibility outputs, audio accessibility outputs, multilingual accessibility outputs, or synchronized multimodal accessibility outputs (Lemond: Fig. 3 and Fig. 5; ¶ 0039, “The Customized Electronic Content Delivery System includes content sources 351-35M on FIGS. 3 and 5, which are contained in the Customized Electronic Services Delivery System 300, and which provide a multitude of entertainment and information, which are mapped into a plurality of data streams that are available to the passengers on the aircraft. As shown in FIG. 5, these can be categorized into typical category offerings of movies and videos 531, live television 532, live radio 533, music and audio entertainment 534, e-commerce and shopping 535, video games 536, gambling and other interactive services 537, social networking 538, “Flightgeist” (flight-related travel information) 538, wherein each of these category offerings typically include multiple choices available to the passenger. In addition, content can include passenger generated content 361, such as photographs of travel destinations, and community generated content 362, such as a bulletin board where passengers can post comments and descriptions of various topics, such as ratings of restaurants at the destination to which the aircraft is traveling”); and
one or more network communication systems configured to establish real-time communication sessions between authorized passenger-operated portable electronic communication devices and one or more remote communication systems (Lemond: Fig. 1; ¶ 0027- ¶0031, “The Air-to-Ground Network 2 shown in FIG. 1 is clearly one that is based on wireless communications (radio frequency or optical) between the ground-based cellular communications network 101 and the passengers' wireless devices that are located in the aircraft, with the preferred approach being that of a radio frequency connection. This radio frequency connection takes on the form of a cellular topology where typically more than one cell describes the geographic footprint or coverage area of the composite Air-To-Ground Network 2. The air-to ground connection carries both passenger communications traffic and native network signaling traffic.”; Fig. 3 and Fig. 5; ¶ 0039, “The Customized Electronic Content Delivery System includes content sources 351-35M on FIGS. 3 and 5, which are contained in the Customized Electronic Services Delivery System 300, and which provide a multitude of entertainment and information, which are mapped into a plurality of data streams that are available to the passengers on the aircraft. As shown in FIG. 5, these can be categorized into typical category offerings of movies and videos 531, live television 532, live radio 533, music and audio entertainment 534, e-commerce and shopping 535, video games 536, gambling and other interactive services 537, social networking 538, “Flightgeist” (flight-related travel information) 538, wherein each of these category offerings typically include multiple choices available to the passenger.”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lemond teaches all the features of claim 13, as outlined above.
Lemond further teaches:
wherein the onboard communication infrastructure comprises at least one onboard router, communication gateway, cabin wireless access point, satellite communication system, air-to-ground communication system, edge-computing infrastructure, or distributed cloud communication infrastructure (Lemond: Fig. 2, Item 102; ¶ 0032- ¶0037, “ The aircraft-based network for passengers' wireless devices comprises a Local Area Network 206 that includes a radio frequency communication system 201 that uses a spread spectrum paradigm and having a short range of operation. This network 206 supports both circuit-switched and packet-switched connections from passengers' wireless devices 221-224 and interconnects the communications of these passengers' wireless devices 221-224 via a gateway transceiver or transceivers 210 to the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) 144 and other destinations, such as the Internet 147 or Public Switched Data Network (PSDN). The wireless passengers thereby retain their single number identity as if they were directly connected to the Public Switched Telephone Network 144.”).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lemond teaches all the features of claim 13, as outlined above.
Lemond further teaches:
wherein the passenger-operated portable electronic communication devices comprise smartphones, cellular telephones, tablet computers, laptop computers, conferencing terminals, browser-enabled communication devices, accessibility communication devices, or acoustic attenuation communication devices (Lemond: Fig. 2, Items 221-224; ¶ 0032, “The passengers' wireless devices 221-224 include a diversity of communication devices, such as laptop computers 221, cellular telephones 222, MP3 music players (not shown), Personal Digital Assistants PDA) (not shown), WiFi-based devices 223, WiMax-based devices 224, and the like, and for simplicity of description are all collectively termed “passengers' wireless devices” herein, regardless of their implementation specific details.”).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lemond teaches all the features of claim 13, as outlined above.
Lemond further teaches:
further comprising communication monetization systems configured to associate communication charges with passenger authorization classifications, communication durations, conferencing classifications, accessibility classifications, subscription classifications, monetization classifications, or combinations thereof (Lemond: Fig. 3, Item 313; Fig. 4, Step 403; ¶ 0066, “ In response to the receipt of a content request from the passenger's wireless device at step 403, Passenger-Based Content Management System 313 verifies that the passenger's wireless device is subscribed to the requested content delivery service and the content is presently available. If the passenger is not pre-paid for the requested content delivery service, then the Passenger-Based Content Management System 313 executes a payment routine (not shown) where the passenger can pay for the requested content delivery service.”).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lemond teaches all the features of claim 13, as outlined above.
Lemond further teaches:
further comprising communication logging systems configured to maintain communication authorization records, passenger seat records, timestamp records, monetization records, accessibility communication records, synchronized caption records, interpreted speech records, administrative override records, bandwidth allocation records, communication congestion records, or combinations thereof (Lemond: Fig. 3, Item 313; Fig. 4, Step 404; ¶ 0066, “At step 404, the Passenger-Based Content Management System 313 updates the Passenger Attributes Database entries for this passenger, to record the present content selection for the passenger and thereby to maintain a current history of the passenger preferences. At step 405, the Passenger-Based Content Management System 313 executes the retrieval of the requested content and delivers the content to the passenger via the aircraft-based network described in FIG. 2.”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lemond teaches all the features of claim 13, as outlined above.
Lemond further teaches:
wherein the communication synchronization systems synchronize communication sessions across aircraft communication environments, train communication environments, maritime communication environments, bus communication environments, transportation hubs, passenger terminals, or distributed transportation communication environments (Lemond: Fig. 3, Items 320-321; ¶ 0040, “FIG. 3 illustrates, in block diagram form, the architecture of the Customized Electronic Services Delivery System 300. A plurality of aircraft 320, 321, each having their respective set of passengers 360, (including passengers 330, 331, 335, 336, for example) are shown as being connected via radio frequency links 301, 302 to the Customized Electronic Services Delivery System 30”).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemond, in view of Jackson et al. (U.S Pub No. 2017/0,295,154 A1, referred to as Jackson).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lemond teaches all the features of claim 13, as outlined above.
Lemond does not explicitly disclose, however Jackson teaches:
wherein the communication authorization systems comprise tokenized communication authorization systems configured to generate encrypted communication authorization tokens associated with passenger communication sessions (Jackson: ¶ 0026, “Additionally or alternatively, the one or more networks 110 may include one or more wired networks or interfaces 112 b, such as a wired Ethernet, Local Talk, or other type of CSMA/CD (Carrier Sense Multiple Access/Collision Detection) network, token ring,”; Fig. 3, Step 238; ¶ 0045, “In the example message flow 215 shown in FIG. 3, client application 210 requests local service(s) (reference 238) by sending a service request to the discovery service 105, e.g., by using the static address of the discovery service 105. Included in the request 238 may be, for example, an indication of an identity and/or type of a particular requested service that is being requested by the client application 210 (e.g., an indication of the identity and/or the type of Service C 208 c), an indication of a general request for available services, and/or a token. In an embodiment, the token may be an authentication token that is signed by the same party that assigned the address of the discovery service 105. For example, the environment service provider providing/operating the dis-connectable environment 102 and/or the communication services therein may have signed the authentication token provided by the client application 210 included in the service request 238. In an embodiment, the request for service(s) 238 may comprise a request for a key to an API (Application Programming Interface) exposed by the requested Service C 208 c and that the client application 210 may be able to use to gain access to the service 208 c, e.g., by means of a network address, URL, port, etc. provided by the API. In an embodiment, the request for service(s) 238 may comprise a request for a key to an API (Application Programming Interface) exposed by multiple available services and that the client application 210 may be able to use to gain access to the multiple available services, e.g., by means of a network address, URL, port, etc. provided by the API.”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lemond by Jackson to provide an authentication token during a client request for services in order to have secured communications and access to the provided services. (Jackson: ¶ 0045).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemond, in view of Walsh et al. (U.S Patent No. 9,825,910 B2, referred to as Walsh).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lemond teaches all the features of claim 13, as outlined above.
Lemond does not explicitly disclose, however Walsh teaches:
wherein the transportation-provider-managed communication governance systems comprise administrative override systems configured to remotely terminate passenger communication sessions (Walsh: C6, ln 32-67, “In addition, a Policy Server 302 functions to enable the one passenger wireless communication device 121 to establish a temporary communication session with the server on the Internet 106 via the radio frequency link 103 and the aircraft based Restricted Local Area Network 100 as a function of at least one usage limitation selected from the class of usage limitations, including: total data bandwidth used, instantaneous bandwidth used, time duration of the communication session, and access of sites beyond a list of authorized sites. Furthermore, an Access Termination Process 303, is responsive to the one passenger wireless communication device 121 exceeding the at least one usage limitation, for terminating the temporary communication session with the server on the Internet 106.”; C7- C10).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lemond by Walsh and have an access termination process capable to terminate communication sessions for passengers’ wireless communication devices in order to control the communication sessions bandwidth and duration for the passengers. (Walsh: C6, ln 32-67).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemond, in view of Klinefelter et al. (U.S Pub No. 2020/0,107,143 A1, referred to as Klinefelter).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lemond teaches all the features of claim 13, as outlined above.
Lemond does not explicitly disclose, however Klinefelter teaches:
wherein the accessibility communication rendering systems facilitate communication accessibility for users having impaired speech, hearing impairments, visual impairments, articulation impairments, neurological impairments, degenerative communication impairments, communication-processing impairments, or combinations thereof (Klinefelter: ¶ 0003, “The present invention relates generally to a system, method, and apparatus for providing real-time or near real-time interpreting services for utilization on a network. More specifically, embodiments of the invention relate to systems, methods, and apparatuses for facilitating communication for the hearing impaired or disabled in situations that are location-specific and in which the use of live interpreters is inconvenient or relatively neither cost nor time effective, wherein a real-time or near real-time interpreting service is provided, via a network.”; ¶ 0044, “In the travel industry this “point-of-sale” service may be utilized by airlines, rental car operations, hotels, cruise operators and the like. It has direct application for point-of-entry interpreting for immigration desks, customs officials and transport operators. In the education sector it suggests the possibility of online education beamed globally yet available simultaneously in a number of different language translations.”).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teaching of Lemond by Klinefelter a apparatus for facilitating communication for the hearing impaired or disabled in situations that are location-specific and in which the use of live interpreters is inconvenient or relatively neither cost nor time effective to provide a real-time or near real-time interpreting service. (Klinefelter: ¶ 0003).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if they were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, also should applicant overcome the claim objections and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for identifying allowable subject matter.
The closest prior arts made of records are, Lemond et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0,133, 705 A1, referred to as Lemond), Jackson et al. (U.S Pub No. 2017/0,295,154 A1, referred to as Jackson) and Walsh et al. (U.S Patent No. 9,825,910 B2, referred to as Walsh).
Lemond discloses Customized Electronic Services Delivery System which provides customized electronic services to passengers who are located onboard an aircraft by storing data indicative of a plurality of electronic services that are available to passengers who are located onboard an aircraft, as well as data indicative of preferences of passengers for the plurality of electronic services.
Jackson discloses techniques for authenticating client applications to services and/or applications that are provided within an environment that may become disconnected as a whole from other networks (e.g., on-board a vehicle) may include receiving an indication of a local service that may be provided within the dis-connectable environment and authenticating/registering the local service.
Walsh discloses captive portal environment exists where there is only a single available communication service that is available to the user. An example of a captive portal environment is on board an aircraft in flight, where the passengers have no access to any communication services, other than the aircraft resident wireless Local Area Network.
However, regarding claim 18, the prior art Lemond, Jackson and Walsh when taken in the context of the claim as a whole do not disclose nor suggest, “further comprising quality-of-service communication prioritization systems configured to prioritize conferencing communication traffic, Voice over Internet Protocol communication traffic, accessibility communication traffic, synchronized caption traffic, interpreted speech traffic, browser communication traffic, telehealth communication traffic, or combinations thereof.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN SAADOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-8408. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mehrmanesh Amir can be reached at 571-2703351. 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.
/HASSAN SAADOUN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2435
/AMIR MEHRMANESH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2435
