agent identifier, the verification process based on correlating the stored broadcast agent jurisdiction
`
`autholity and using this to verify and ensure that the broadcast target area wi.thin the broadcast
`
`message request is within the predefined and stored jurisdiction for the broadcast agent is now
`
`recited.
`
`5.2
`
`Claim 2 and new claim 23 recite that two or more broadcast message transmission
`
`systems is selected from a listed group of systems that also now includes (see claim 2 for ease of
`
`review), not only an intemet service provider but an internet provider (See Para. 0115) including a
`
`website and in more detail a website content provider providing text, graphical data, image and
`
`mapping content service via a website (See Para. 0219 wherein it is disclosed "User receiving
`
`devices may include mobile or cellular phones, PDA's, PC's, etc. Receiving devices may provide a
`
`distinct alert ring-tone that continues until the message is acknowledged by a local user. Such
`
`features and functions are dependent on the featmes and functionality of the various receiving
`
`devices. Some receiving devices may be configured to receive text messages, graphical data,
`
`images, and maps or may be capable of connecting to a designated website that provides additional
`
`information." Spec. Para. 0219 (emphasis added). While this disclosure addresses the receiving
`
`devices, as one of ordinary skill in the rut will understand, in order for the user receiving devices to
`
`pe1fo1m the capabilities identified in Pru·a. 0219, the designated website and application
`
`functionality of such, requires that such website be enabled or configured to provide the broadcast
`
`message transmission and delivery to such website in order for the user receiving devices to provide
`
`this functionality. As such, the Applicants believe that no new matter is added with this
`
`amendment.
`
`5 .3
`
`Claims 4, 11 and 17 - amended the claims to delete the recitation to "ale1ting" and
`
`replace it with broadcasting which is consistent with the claim te1ms of the other claims.
`
`5.4
`
`Claim 6 - amended to depend from claim 1 rather than cancelled claim 5 and to
`
`recite that the one or more broadcast message transmission systems includes a wireless mobile
`
`cru.Tier network for inte1facing with the broadcast message management system.
`
`5.5
`
`5.6
`
`Claim 9 - amended to depend from claim 1 rather than cancelled claim 5.
`
`Claim 16 - amended the claim to delete the term "selects" and replace it with as
`
`reference to the piior recitations that it is the "detennining" of the two or more broadcast message
`
`transmission systems.
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 15 of 43
`
`201/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`5.7
`
`Claim 18 - amended to remove the "at least of' so that the claim recites that the
`
`selecting is responsive to the message type and the broadcast target area, each defined in the
`
`broadcast message request.
`
`5.8
`
`Claims 19 and 20 - amended for clality and antecedent basis for the terms in the
`
`claims from which claim 19 depends.
`
`5.9
`
`New claims 21, 22, and 24 recite the message type or message type identifier which
`
`is representative of a message type (as applicable for the claim) is selected from the group
`
`consisting of a language, a governmental entity, a governmental autholity defined message type, an
`
`oliginating organization, and an industry. Suppo1t for this is found in the Spec in Para. 0103 and
`
`0104 as to the message type being defined by the channel Id codes and Para. 0234 that lists the
`
`different types of codes 500-650 for different languages; 671-674 for industry types such as
`
`mruitirne, aeronautical, and scientific; 690-699 for different originating entities such as the red cross
`
`and the national health organization (WHO); and Para. 0235 that following the exemplary list of
`
`Para. 0234 of Appendix 1, that "other channels [message types] at the discretion of the networks,
`
`and in conjunction with the governmental autho1ities and other interested parties." See discussion
`
`above in Section 4.1 for fu1ther discussion and suppo1t.
`
`5 .10 New claim 23 - depends from claim 17 and is a duplicate of amended prior claim 2
`
`that depends from claim l.
`
`Applicant does not believe that new matter has been added with these amendments.
`
`6.
`
`NO DISCLAIMERS OR DISAVOWALS
`
`Although the present conununication may include alterations to the application or claims,
`
`or characte1izations of claim scope or referenced rut, the Applicants ru·e not conceding in this
`
`application that previously pending claims are not patentable over the cited references. Rather,
`
`any alterations or characterizations are being made to facilitate expeditious prosecution of this
`
`application.
`
`Applicant reserves the right to pursue at a later date any previously pending or other
`
`broader or nruTower claims that capture any subject matter supported by the present disclosure,
`
`including subject matter found to be specifically disclaimed herein or by any p1ior prosecution.
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 16 of 43
`
`202/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`Accordingly, reviewers of this or any parent, child or related prosecution history sha11 not
`
`reasonably infer that the Applicants have made any disclaimers or disavowals of any subject
`
`matter supported by the present application.
`
`7.
`
`REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 103
`
`While the Applicants believe that the above amendments to the claims in view of the that
`
`which the Office action identified as being allowable results in the al1owabi1ity of all cunently
`
`pending (fo11owing this Amendment A) claims, the Applicant disagree with the Office's basis for
`
`the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Obviousness rejections as the Office's identified interpretations of
`
`references are in completely erroneous and without basis, and the Office's identified
`
`combination of the system and method disclosed by Vella/Allport is merely an attempted
`
`combination that has no basis and the resulting combination does not teach or disclose all of the
`
`elements of the claims and therefore the Office does not provide a p1ima facie case of
`
`obviousness. As such, the Applicants herein place the following response in the record in these
`
`regards.
`
`7.1
`
`Ptiorclaims 1-4, 10, 13-15, 17, 19-20 stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2004/013158, issued to Vella (hereinafter Vella) in view of
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 6,480,578, issued to Allport (hereinafter Allport). This rejection is respectfully
`
`traversed.
`
`As an initial matter, the Vella and the Allport references will be b1iefly reviewed, both
`
`alone for their individual disclosures and also their combination, e.g., the modification of Vella
`
`in view of Allport. The Applicants acknowledge that they cannot show nonobv.iousness by
`
`attacking these two references individually, however, a rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 103(a) must
`
`include a showing that in view of the combined references that all of the elements or limitations
`
`of the claim recitations are present in the combination such that the invention as a whole would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Each of the Vella and Allport references
`
`fails to teach that which the Office has eIToneously suggested by merely reciting the Applicant's
`
`claim te1ms and citing to sections of the references. As will be discussed, the cited references do
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 17 of 43
`
`203/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`not teach or disclose that which the Office has relied upon. Therefore, the combination of Vella
`
`and Allport (hereinafter referred to as Vella/Allport) which i.s the sum of the teaching of the two
`
`(in the form of a modification of Vella by Allport) cannot teach or disclose all of the recitations
`
`or elements recited by each of the claims as required by the first Graham factor for a finding of
`
`p1ima facie obviousness (See MPEP 2143.A(l) and 2143.03), the rejections based on the
`
`combination of Vella and Allport should be withdrawn.
`
`As the Office actions base these rejections on Vella as a plimary reference, the teachings
`
`and disclosure of Vella will first be reviewed and the incon-ect statements in the Office action as
`
`to Vella traversed as clear eJTor. Then the same will be addressed as to Allport. Next the
`
`modification of the Vella reference by the Allport reference will be addressed, both as to the
`
`erroneous statements in the Office action and as to a factual combination based on the actual
`
`teachings of both Vella and Allport as one or ordinary skill in the art would correctly apply.
`
`Fmther, as will be addressed Vella cannot be modified by Allport in support of a p1ima facie
`
`obviousness rejection.
`
`After that, the teachings and disclosure of Atkin will be similarly reviewed as to the
`
`modification of the combination of Vella/Allport. Next the teaching of Zimmers and the
`
`subsequent modification of the Vella/Allport combination by Zimmers will be reviewed.
`
`Contrary to the description in the Office action, Vella does not teach or disclose
`
`substantially the invention as claimed in claims 1 and 17, nor does it teach most of the featmes
`
`of the recitations of claims 1 and 17. While Applicants agree that the subject matter of the
`
`intended inventive solutions are each to systems and methods for message processing and can be
`
`used for a message alerting service, the technical solutions to attain that aim are completely
`
`different.
`
`In contrast to the present specification and claims, Vella discloses a cellular messaging
`
`alert method and system that is different than that recited by the claims in the present application.
`
`In fact, the present application desc1ibes in the Background Section (Specification, Paras. 0003-
`
`00021) a system and method that is similar to that disclosed by Vella. As noted, in the
`
`Background Section, the Vella based system has considerable limitations and problems, some of
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 18 of 43
`
`204/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`which are acknowledged in Vella. As identified in the present specification, those limitations are
`
`not present in the current claimed system. Spec, Paras. 0043 and 0044.
`
`It should be noted up front that the present claims do not address the originator broadcast
`
`message request creation system that is accessed by the broadcast agent/message originator,
`
`which is a considerable portion of the disclosed Vella system and method.
`
`Vella's disclosed systems and methods use a web-based GUI inte1face that can include a
`
`basic rectangular mapping capability (Vella, Paras. 0042-0048), however, Vella discloses that the
`
`a1e1t originator first selects a message target area or location, then the system determines the
`
`recipients of the alert based on the a query to a database that stores contact information including
`
`the telephone numbers of all of the subscribers or persons that have a home location within the
`
`defined message target area. Vella, Para. 0049 (emphasis added). The telephone numbers for
`
`each identified recipient having a home location in the message target area is detennined by
`
`Vella from a database for use in transmitting the alert message to each individual recipient. Vella,
`
`Paras. 0058-0061. Vella also desc1ibes that the initial listing of recipients as identified by their
`
`telephone numbers can be added to or reduced based on information obtained from a mobile
`
`carriers Home Location Register (HLR) and/or Visitor Location Register (VLR) Vella, Para.
`
`0065. Vella also teaches an alternative embodiment where the alert message is sent to the mobile
`
`carrier for transmission to each telephone number of a user within the HLR and VLR databases
`
`of the carrier. Vella, 0067.
`
`Vella teaches that after the recipients of the message are determined by its system and
`
`method, an ale1t can be generated by the agent. Vella, Para. 0050, 0063-0064. The Ale1t message
`
`of Vella is generated, "launched" by a launch server by sending a file of all of the identified
`
`recipient telephone numbers to an sho1t messaging service (SMS) system of a cellular canier.
`
`Vella, Paras. 0069, 0078. The ale1t message, as taught by Vella, is individually transmitted on a
`
`point to point basis to each recipient by sending out individual SMS messages based on the
`
`individual recipient telephone numbers as required by SMS text messaging and as provided by
`
`the file sent from the Vella message server. Vella, Para. 0053, 0063-0064, 0079. As noted by
`
`Vella, this results in the mobile canier having to process individual SMS text messages that can
`
`result, in an emergency situation, having hundreds of thousands or even millions of SMS
`
`messages having to be processed by the SMS servers of the mobile carriers. See Vella, Para.
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 19 of 43
`
`205/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`0079, and Specification, Paras. 0005-0021. Even in the alternative embodiment as described by
`
`Vella , the launch server merely transmits the file with all of the telephone numbers of the
`
`previously identified recipients to the mobile can"ier for their internal processing using the SMS
`
`server's HLR/VLR databases to transmit the individual SMS messages to the telephone numbers
`
`as identified in the HLRNLR databases of the earlier. Vella, Paras. 0080-0081.
`
`In summary, Vella discloses identifying individual recipients by the 10-digit telephone
`
`number and then replicating the message for each and every recipient in the fonn of a point-to(cid:173)
`
`point SMS text message sent via the 10-digit telephone number. Vella teaches that each recipient
`
`receives the ale1t message via the SMS text messaging capability of the handset.
`
`Vella discloses an agent authorization process that is based on the alert 01iginator
`
`entering a user name and password to verify the ale1t agent's autholity. Vella, Para. 0056. Vella
`
`also discloses that this verification of each message can include a verbal identification code
`
`referred to as a "launch code" whereby once the user name, password and launch code are
`
`con-ectly entered, the alert message is transmitted to the phone numbers for each of the identified
`
`recipients. Vella , Paras 0056-0058. As coJTectly noted in the Office action, Vella does not
`
`provide any disclosure that validates or verifies that the originator of the message to be broadcast
`
`has authotity to have the message broadcast to the target area for the particular message. Vella
`
`only discloses that the messaging agent as access authority to the messaging system such as a
`
`user login and a message launch code (user name, password and some additionaJ code that is
`
`secret that is input to teU the system that the message can be transmitted. As such, it appears
`
`inherent in Vella that the messaging server must store user ids, passwords and also message
`
`launch codes.
`
`Vella discloses a message broadcasting system (shown in Fig. 3 as 300) that uses a launch
`
`server with an apparent tie-in to a system database 335 "in order to detennine the recipients for
`
`the alert within the defined area" Id, Para. 0074. Only after determining the recipients does the
`
`Vella system web inte1face server 335 receives the message data from the alerting agency 305 or
`
`310 to be included in the alert message. Id., Para. 0075. Or in the alternative, the unformatted
`
`message is sent to the mobile caITiers SMS point to point messaging server 355/357 to all
`
`cellular phones cunently registered in the SMS server's HLRNLR database 360. Id., Para.
`
`0080.
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 20 of 43
`
`206/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`Vella - responses to specific inc01i-ect statements in the Office action
`
`a. Vella teaches substantially the invention as claimed including a message broadcast system for
`
`collecting broadcast messages from a plurality of broadcast message originators and providing a
`
`broadcast message to a plurality of broadcast message transmission systems for broadcasting to a
`
`plurality of user devices located within a geographically defined broadcast target area, (OA, p.
`
`14, Para. 3).
`
`Response: As will be discussed and as discussed above, while Vella discloses a message
`
`broadcast system, the Vella disclosed system, architecture and processes are completely different
`
`than those recited by the current claims and while the pmpose is similar, the solution is very
`
`different.
`
`b. a broadcast message management system communicatively coupled f or receiving broadcast
`
`message requests from a plurality of coupled broadcast agent message origination systems (OA,
`
`p. 14, Para 4) and each broadcast request being from a different originating broadcast agent
`
`associated one of the coupled broadcast agent message origination systems (para. [0021]
`
`Agencies to send ale1t messages (QA, p. 14, Para 4).
`
`Response: As shown by way of example in Vella, Fig. 3, Vella discloses a broadcast
`
`agent message origination system 310, with web server 325 and launch server 330 coupled to
`
`prop1ietary database 335 that receives feeds from the Bellcore database 340 and PC Consultants
`
`database 345. This system 300 .is desctibed by Vella in Vella Para. 0069 as "an exemplary
`
`systemfor providing an alert." (emphasis added). Vella discloses that alerting agencies connect
`
`to the web inte1face server 325 and that such displays the webpages enabling the selection and
`
`definition of the alert request. Id. , Paras. 0069-00710. After having the ale1t area defined, the
`
`web interface server 325 accesses the database 335 to determine the telephone number or
`
`recipients of all devices within the target area and only then does the system 300 include the alert
`
`message, See Id. , Paras. 0074-0077, wherein the server "combines the input message with the
`
`information polled from the system database and outputs the result file to the web launch server."
`
`Id. , Para. 0078. In other words, the system server 300 as taught by Vella determines all of the
`
`telephone numbers for all mobile devices identified to be within the target area and then builds a
`
`file with the message and the entire list of telephone numbers for which the message is to be
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 21of43
`
`207/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`sent. This is so as SMS messaging requires a list of telephone numbers and is a point to point
`
`message service.
`
`Vella discloses that the file is then sent to the cellular carrier for theiJ SMS messaging
`
`system processing. As such, Vella only discloses the broadcast agent message origination
`
`system that is a web hosted inte1faces and which server receives the message and the list of
`
`recipient telephone numbers to which the message is to be sent. Vella does not teach or disclose
`
`a broadcast message system that receives requests from a plmality of broadcast agent message
`
`oligination systems each providing a broadcast message request that includes a message, the
`
`originator agent ID and the target area.
`
`c the broadcast request including a broadcast agent identification, the geographically defined
`
`broadcast target area, and a broadcast message, the system receiving the plurality of broadcast
`
`message requests (para. [0049) [0051 Receive location and inputted text for alert message, para.
`
`[0055) [0056] Select location and provide identification.). (OA, p. 14, Para 4).
`
`Response: As addressed in the immediately above discussion, Vella clearly discloses that
`
`the target area is first defined and submitted to the origination system (Vella, Para. 0074); then
`
`the list of recipient is determined (Id., Para. 0075); and then the message to be sent is input (Id.,
`
`Paras. 0076 and 0077). Only at that time does the system 300 of Vella "combine" the input
`
`message data with the polled recipient data to form a file that is sent or transferred to the web
`
`launch server 330. As defined by Vella, this file that is sent to the launch server is not a
`
`broadcast request that is then verified by any disclosed system and does not even include the
`
`broadcast target area, but only includes the input message data that includes the message, ale1t
`
`locations such as airports, the user name, and an authentication code for ve1ifying their
`
`authoiization to send alert message. Id., Para. 0077. Vella discloses the launch server then
`
`determines an address format requi.red by the SMS system of each carrier for text messages and
`
`then send the formatted messages to "the public network." Id. , Para. 0080. Or in the alternative,
`
`provides no formatting and only sends the unformatted alert message to the SMS server of the
`
`canier with instructions to launch the properly formatted message to all cellular phone currently
`
`registered in the SMS server's HLR/VLR database 360.
`
`As such, contrary to the asse1tions in the Office action, Vella does not teach or disclose
`
`the broadcast request including a broadcast agent identification, the geographically defined
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 22 of 43
`
`208/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`broadcast target area, and a broadcast message, the system receiving the plurality of broadcast
`
`message requests.
`
`d. verifying an authority of the originating broadcast agent (para. [0056] Verify ale1t originator's
`
`auth01ity.), (OA, p. 14, Para 4). The Office goes on to coITectly state that "Vella does not
`
`specifically teach ve1ifying the broadcast request as a function of the broadcast agent
`
`identification, and an authority of the 01iginating broadcast agent to send the particular broadcast
`
`message to the broadcast target area of the broadcast message request." (OA, p. 15, Para. 2)
`
`Response: The only teaching in Vella closely related at a11 to a step or process of
`
`verifying is as to the person or agents accessing of the webpage of the message origination
`
`system webpage using and identification code, user name and password. Vella , Para. 0056. As
`
`disclosed, the system 300 which is the origination system includes the user name or
`
`authentication code field 760 in the input message data file that is sent to the launch server but
`
`Vella does not otherwise teach that the launch server or any other component other than the
`
`webpage inte1face server for the agent message origination system ve1ifying an authority of the
`
`agent to send the message. The Office misinterprets the teachings of Vella in this regard.
`
`e. the system further identifying one or more of the broadcast message transmission systems
`
`serving at least a portion of the broadcast target area for the broadcast request, and transmitting
`
`the broadcast message and the broadcast target area to the identified broadcast message
`
`h·ansmission system (para. [0079] Sends fo1matted messages to public network, para. [0080]
`
`Send message to SMS server 355/357 of cellular cruTiers.). (OA, p. 15, Pru·a 1).
`
`Response: Vella discloses the launch server that receives the message having he input
`
`message data and the listing of the recipients. Vella discloses that the launch server 330
`
`transmits such over the "public network" or "internet" if fmmatted for the patticular cellular
`
`carder providing the messaging service to the list of recipients or in the alternative if
`
`unformatted it "sends" the unformatted message to the SMS server 355/357 of the pruticulru·
`
`cruTier with instructions for the SMS server of the mobile caITier to launch the properly
`
`fonnatted message, (e.g., where the cru1ier perfo1ms their own formatting. See Vella, Para.
`
`0080. Regru·dless, as shown in Fig. 3, Vella discloses two methods wherein the message
`
`oligination system uses the tru·get area to dete1mine a listing of mobile devices or recipients
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 23 of 43
`
`209/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`located in the target area based on querying the mobile caITier databases such as the HLR/VLR,
`
`the Be11Core database 340 or the PC Consultants database 345. Vella discloses that only after
`
`the recipient list is combined with the message data is it transmitted to the mobile canier's
`
`network or SMS hardware 355, 357. While Applicants agree that the "internet" 320 is used and
`
`that Vella discloses a launch server 330 as a prut of the message oiigination system 300, contrary
`
`to the assertions in the Office action, Vella does not teach or disclose selecting or determining a
`
`message broadcast network that server a po1iion of the target area. To the contrru·y, Vella only
`
`discloses in the OA's referenced Para. 0079 that "the launch server 330 formats the ale1i message
`
`to comply with the particular cellular carrier providing service to the recipient." Emphasis
`
`added. Vella does not teach or disclose any form of network selection or determination.
`
`For these reasons alone, contrary to the assertions in the Office action, Vella does not
`
`teach or disclose those elements recited by the current claims. As such, rejections based on such
`
`inc01Tect asse1tions are not supported and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness based on
`
`these asserted and unsupp01ted teachings in Vella must be withdrawn.
`
`Allport
`
`Allport discloses a communication system for notification of warnings. Allport' s system
`
`monitors the telephone lines for specific codes that ru·e sent out over the wireline network and
`
`upon receipt of a code, activates a visual or audio ale1ting notification. In other words, the
`
`wireless telephone network is configured to send alerting codes over the wirelines to activate the
`
`local notification device almost like a reverse home monito1ing ala1m system. To accomplish
`
`this, Allport discloses that the central office based system must identify each and every line that
`
`is located in the message or alert target ru·ea based on the telephone numbers and a storing of the
`
`location of the telephone devices based on their telephone numbers. As described, to anyone that
`
`knows anything about wireless telephone equipment, is very difficult if not impossible post
`
`number po1tability implementation as mandated by the FCC. A database of wireline numbers
`
`and their physical location has to be maintained, and are often complex back office systems used
`
`by telephone company maintenance and repair personnel. The telephone number has to be cross(cid:173)
`
`referenced to a physical pair etc. Just like caller ID service, to generate a code over a telephone
`
`line, the local central office switch has to access the line via a modem or similru· device to input
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 24 of 43
`
`210/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`or apply the code, just like the applying a ring tone power.
`
`Allport does address to a limited degree the message creation and processi ng for alerting
`
`messages as identified, but really misidentified, by the Office. In Fig. 12, the Allport process
`
`includes entering postal codes and signal type in S 120, and checking input authoiization in S 122
`
`and authorization validation in S 124. However, contrary to the reliance and misinterpretation in
`
`the Office action, Allport discloses that the authorized party must input some form of
`
`authorization (step S 122) in order for processing to continue. Allport, Col. 13, lines 10-12. As
`
`taught, it is the agent that inputs authorization. Allport discloses that the authorization can
`
`depend on the system's intended scope, and use, and may include passwords, electronic or
`
`mechanical keys, magnetic cards, tokens or any other form of identification veiification. Id. ,
`
`lines l2-16. (emphasis added). In other words, Allport clearly di scloses that its verification is
`
`as to the identification of the party inputting the message. Id. Only after the pruty is
`
`authenticated as to identification, does the authorized patty communicate to the telephone
`
`company's switch equipment, those regions to be sent the coded message. Id. Lines 17-20. In
`
`other words, the identity of the patty that is accessing the telephone central office switch, is
`
`verified only for access to the CO switch. Once the CO switch is accessed, the pat·ty can enter
`
`the "target at·ea" as the region for the alert coded signal to be sent as well as the type of signal to
`
`be sent. Id. Lines 10-24 and col. 14, lines 45-55. Allport, like Vella, merely includes a
`
`disclosme as to verifying that the accessing party is authorized to access the system or to send
`
`particular types of signals (Allport).
`
`Allport - Response to specific erroneous statements in the Office action:
`
`Allport teaches ve1ifying a broadcast request as a function of a broadcast agent identification and
`
`an authority of an originating broadcast agent to send the broadcast message to the broadcast
`
`tat·get at·ea (col. 12, line 66-col. 13, line 1. Types of signal that can be sent. col. 13, lines 17-22.
`
`Communicate regions to be sent a coded signal and specific signal type to be sent to each region,
`
`col. 14, lines 45-49. Validate that the sender has the authority to issue such signals.). (OA, p. 15,
`
`Pat·a. 3).
`
`Response: Allport does not teach this, but rather teaches a different process for which the
`
`Office has misinterpreted and en-oneously applied in combination with the acknowledged
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 25 of 43
`
`211/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`missing component of Vella. Allport discloses its authorization process in Fig. 12 and the related
`
`pottion of its disclosure as correctly identified in the Office action as Allport, col. 12, line 66-col.
`
`13, line 1. However, Allport teaches that "There are thJ·ee main roles within this system. First
`
`(with reference again to FIG. 1), the office AlO must provide information and instructions to the
`
`telephone company's central office Al2, then the central office must provide info1mation and
`
`instructions to the local switches A 14, and then the local switches A 14 must provide the
`
`notification messages to the appropriate subsclibers A22." Id., Col, 12, lines 31-37. Allport
`
`then desclibes these three role processes in order with the process of Office AlO (the message or
`
`alerting autho1ity) that provides instructions to the telephone company central office A2 being
`
`described in Fig. 12.
`
`In the referenced portion of Allport, co1. 12, line 66-col. 13, line 1, Allport states there are
`
`"three types of signals that can be sent, namely "all clear," "warning," and "emergency"." None
`
`of this has anything to do with teaching a validation. But rather, as a lead in and with reference
`
`to Fig. 12, Allport discloses "The authorized party must also input some form of authorization
`
`(step S122) in order for processing to continue. The method of authorization depends on the
`
`system's intended scope and use, and may include passwords, electronic or mechanical keys,
`
`magnetic cards or tokens or any other form of identification verification. According to preferred
`
`embodiments of the present invention, the authorized party communicates to the telephone
`
`company's switch equipment, those regions to be sent a coded signal, and the specific signal type
`to be sent to each region. Accordingly, if the authorization is determined to be valid (step SJ24),
`then the postal codes and signal type are sent to the telephone switches (step S126). In the
`
`embodiment desciibed in FIG. 12, an invalid authorization can be entered once. Therefore, if the
`
`authorization is determined to be invalid (step S124), another oppo1tunity is provided to give a
`
`valid authorization (steps S 128, S 130), otherwise the process terminates. Id., Col, 13, lines 1-18
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`As such, Allport discloses that the 01iginating party has to provide some sort of
`
`autholization input to the central office switch of the local telephone company in order to input
`
`the data or gain access to the central office switch/computer access. Of course as anyone of
`
`ordinary skill in the art understands, a central office switch only serves a local city or geographic
`
`po1tion of a city based on the wired network of trunks and lines. As such, Allport teaches that
`
`the ale1t originator has to gain access to each and every geographically located transmission
`
`Serial No. 13/887,940
`
`Page 26 of 43
`
`212/302
`
`DOJ EX. 1010
`
`

`
`device or management and enter an access code, be allowed to gain access and then to pass on
`
`the alert message. The ale1t originator or his system has to gain access to each local distribution
`
`network. This is not what is recited by the claims. Additionally, the telephone companies never
`
`allow anyone access to their switches even under unbundled network elements scenatio. The
`
`method of authorization as taught by Allport for accessing an inaccessible telephone company
`
`central office switch" ... depends on the system's intended scope and use, and may include
`
`passwords, electronic or mechanical keys