Obviousness

I do not have the requisite information to perform an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US patent 11653182, as the provided Google Patents page does not contain an explicit "Prior Art" section listing references cited against US11653182 during its prosecution.

The "Prior art keywords" section lists general terms such as "mobile phone," "message," "receiving mobile," "psms," and "sending," but these are not specific patent or publication references that can be combined for an obviousness argument. The "Cited By" and "Families Citing this family" sections list patents and applications that reference US11653182 or its family members, meaning these are generally later publications and not prior art to the July 24, 2007, priority date of US11653182.

Without specific prior art references, it is not possible to identify combinations of such references, explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine them, or assess their collective teachings to render the claims of US11653182 obvious.