Detailed Action
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15 are pending in this application. Claims 4, 9, 14 were cancelled. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/15/25 has been entered. This is a Final Rejection.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector (US 2008/0267360) in view of Moore (US 2007/0219810).
As to claims 1,6,11, Spector discloses a method for event response/An apparatus comprising at least one processor and a memory storing computer program instructions executable by the at least one processor, wherein the memory and the computer program instructions and the processor are configured to cause the apparatus to/ A non-transitory computer-readable medium tangibly comprising computer program instructions, which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor(Fig.1, para.43) to at least: (b) receiving, by the processor, an alert, wherein the alert is at least one of a 911 call, an emergency response alert, and a social media post (para.58.. In step 200, the emergency control center 105 receives an emergency notification..); (c) receiving, by the processor, a plurality of profiles from the plurality of user equipments, wherein the plurality of profiles are received by the processor prior to the alert but cannot be accessed by the processor prior to the receiving the alert(Fig.2, para.57; FIG. 2 illustrates one embodiment of a databank in accordance with an aspect of the present invention. The databank includes a plurality of first responders. In this case, Ned S., Jill, J, Fred D. and Em D are the first responders. Each of the first responders has one or more associated skill levels. The skill levels can indicated different skills. For example, skill level 1 may indicate the ability to deal with hazardous materials. Skill level 2 may indicate the ability to deal with injured persons. Other skill levels can be included in the databank of FIG. 2. The databank also includes an availability of the first responder. This can be provided by the first responder entering the availability into his or her associated personal computing device. Alternatively, the availability can be assigned by the emergency control center or by any other means possible. The location of the first responder is also provided in the databank. The location is preferably provided by the information provided by the positioning unit 101 for each first responder; information such as skill level, availability, location, etc is interpreted as user’s profile; para. 49,58-59; FIG. 3 illustrates the steps performed by the emergency control center 105 in accordance with one aspect of the present invention. In step 200, the emergency control center 105 receives an emergency notification. The notification specifies the type of emergency and the location of the emergency. In step 202, the emergency control center, which includes a processing center that accesses the databank 106, searches the databank 106 for available first responders. Using the example of FIG. 2, Ned S., Fred D. and Em D. would be available; users information/profile is stored in databank prior to receiving the emergency notification(ie alert) and it obvious to one ordinary skill in the art that the user information/profile is not accessed/searched until there is an emergency notification); (d) receiving, by the processor, an indication that at least one of the plurality of user equipments are located within a predetermined geographic area (para.60; In step 206, the emergency control center 105 determines the location of each of the first responders and their distance from the emergency location. This determination is made based on the location information concerning the emergency from step 200 and from the location information of each first responder provided by the personal computing device 100 and positioning unit 101 associated with each first responder.); (e) determining, by the processor, a plurality of instructions for each one of the at least one of the plurality of user equipments based on the received plurality of profiles (para.62; Based on this determination, the emergency control center issues a message to one or more first responders to respond the emergency. The message is displayed on the personal computing device associated with the selected first responders (which is also stored in the databank). The message can be an email communication, a light, a text message, an alarm or any other type of message. The message can specify the location of the emergency and the type of emergency; the message to the first responder to respond to the emergency is interpreted as the “instructions”); and (f) transmitting, by the processor, a plurality of instructions to the at least one of the plurality of user equipments (para.62; Based on this determination, the emergency control center issues a message to one or more first responders to respond the emergency. The message is displayed on the personal computing device associated with the selected first responders (which is also stored in the databank). The message can be an email communication, a light, a text message, an alarm or any other type of message. The message can specify the location of the emergency and the type of emergency).
Spector does not explicitly disclose (a) transmitting, by a processor, a profile questionnaire to a plurality of user equipments. Spector however does teach a databank with different user’s information/profile, Fig.2.
Moore explicitly teaches (a) transmitting, by a processor, a profile questionnaire to a plurality of user equipments(para.62; There are various ways by which such a personal profile can be established 105. By one approach the information can be acquired by way of a questionnaire and/or interview process ).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Spector of storing user/first responder profile in a databank and identifying a first responder to handle emergencies to use the known method of Moore of using a questionnaire to build a user/first responder profile in order to provide the predictable result of using a questionnaire to collect a first responder’s information to build a profile to handle certain types of emergencies.
One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to provide the best first responder to certain types of emergencies.
As per claims 2,7,12, Spector in view of Moore teaches the method/apparatus/non-transitory readable medium according to claim 1,6,11, wherein the profile questionnaire comprises medical skills questions, emergency response experience questions, law enforcement questions, and military questions(Moore, para.62; There are various ways by which such a personal profile can be established 105. By one approach the information can be acquired by way of a questionnaire and/or interview process para. 59 …. In many cases this personal profile may comprise information regarding the candidate authorized beneficiary's likely personal response to an emergency situation (such as, but not necessarily limited to, a civilly-catastrophic event). This might comprise, depending upon the application context, information regarding (but not necessarily limited to) a personal history of violence, military service, emergency services employment, emergency services training, medical services employment, medical services training, law enforcement service, law enforcement training, mental health, quantified intelligence (as represented, for example, by an intelligence quotient score), physical mobility capability, an assessed response to stressful circumstances, assessed anxieties, and/or assessed levels of self confidence, to name but a few.). Motivation to combine set forth in claim 1,6,11.
As per claims 3, 8,13, Spector in view of Moore teaches the method/apparatus/non-transitory readable medium according to claim 1,6,11, wherein the plurality of user equipments comprise a plurality of cellphones(Spector, para.3,18, claim 3; teaches cell phone; para.62 receiving messages such as email, text etc) however does not explicitly teach smartphones and wearables. Admitted Prior Art; the use of smartphones and wearable(watches) are well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Spector in view of Moore of user’s receiving messages to respond to emergencies on a cellphone to use the well known devices such as smartphones and wearable(watches) in order to provide the predictable result of user’s receiving messages to respond to emergencies on a cellphone, smart phone, and/or wearable (watch). One ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings in order to receive different types of emergency messages on different devices. Note: the applicant fails to adequately traverse the Official Notice taken on 1/16/25, therefore the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement is taken to be admitted prior art. MPEP 2144.03(C).
As per claims 5,10,15, Spector in view of Moore teaches the method/apparatus/non-transitory readable medium according to claim 1,6,11, wherein the plurality of profiles comprise at least medical skill information, emergency response experience information, law enforcement information and military information(Moore, para.62; There are various ways by which such a personal profile can be established 105. By one approach the information can be acquired by way of a questionnaire and/or interview process; para. 59 …. In many cases this personal profile may comprise information regarding the candidate authorized beneficiary's likely personal response to an emergency situation (such as, but not necessarily limited to, a civilly-catastrophic event). This might comprise, depending upon the application context, information regarding (but not necessarily limited to) a personal history of violence, military service, emergency services employment, emergency services training, medical services employment, medical services training, law enforcement service, law enforcement training, mental health, quantified intelligence (as represented, for example, by an intelligence quotient score), physical mobility capability, an assessed response to stressful circumstances, assessed anxieties, and/or assessed levels of self confidence, to name but a few.). Motivation to combine set forth in claim 1,6,11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues in substance that Spector and Moore does not teach “receiving, by the processor, a plurality of profiles from the plurality of user equipment in response to the plurality of user equipment receiving the alert, wherein the plurality of profiles cannot be accessed by the processor prior to the receiving from the plurality of user equipments” because Spector does not teach user profiles are received in response to “the plurality of user equipments receiving the alert” or that “the plurality of profiles cannot be accessed by the processor prior to the receiving from the plurality of user equipments”. There is no teaching in Spector that the emergency control center 105 receives user profiles of the first responders in response to the first responders receiving the alert. Indeed, Spector specifically teaches that the first responders receive an alert after the emergency control center 105 has determined availability, skills needed and location of the first responders. This is clearly the opposite of the language of claim 1, which requires that the user profiles are received in response to the alert.
In reply, Para.27 describes the two different embodiment of the invention, reproduced below
[0027] ….The user will then be prompted to agree to share the information or disagree to share the information and with whom (shown in FIG. 4). In one embodiment, the user will allow the application to share the user's information only in the instance that there is an emergency or mass casualty event. In this embodiment, UE 108 will transmit the user's responses to server 102. Server 102 will be prevented from sharing the information with any other device or person until an event occurs at which point, server 102 will be allowed to use and/or access the user's information. In another embodiment, UE 108 will not transmit the user's responses to the server 102, but will maintain the user's responses/information locally in the memory of UE 108. The UE 108 will then automatically transmit the user's responses/information to server 102 following an emergency or mass casualty event. In another embodiment, UE 108 will prompt the user to allow it to transmit the user's responses/information to server 102 before transmitting the responses/information. The user of UE 108 will also be prompted to agree to receive instructions, information and updates during or following an emergency event (shown in FIG. 5). If the user agrees to receive instructions, information and updates during or following an emergency event, server 102 will provide instructions, information and updates during or following an emergency event as described herein.
The instant claims are directed towards the applicant’s embodiment of sending the user profile prior to the processor/server receiving the alert/emergency event(see underline portion above) which is taught by Spector, Fig.2, para.57 while the applicant is arguing that the claims are directed towards the non-claimed embodiment where the user profile being stored locally in the memory of the UE and will transmit the user profile/information following an alert/emergency(see bolded portion above). These two embodiment appears to be opposite of each other, the server receives the user profile prior/before the emergency(as claimed) and the other embodiment where the server receives the user profile after the emergency(not claimed).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., receiving, by the processor, a plurality of profiles from the plurality of user equipment in response to the plurality of user equipment receiving the alert, wherein the plurality of profiles cannot be accessed by the processor prior to the receiving from the plurality of user equipments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Boss et al.(US 2018/0365785), teaches cognitive emergency task coordination are disclosed. In embodiments, computer-implemented method comprises: receiving, by a computing device, participant data from one or more participant devices; inferring, by the computing device, skills or expertise of one or more available participants based on the participant data; generating, by the computing device, a task list including tasks associated with an emergency; assigning, by the computing device, select participants of the one or more available participants to one or more of the tasks in the task list based on the inferred skills or expertise; and sending, by the computing device, coordination data to the select participants, the coordination data including information regarding the one or more of the tasks assigned to the respective select participants
Ryan et al.,(US 9,826,358) teaches tracking and communicating with responders in the event of an emergency situation. An emergency server coupled to a wireless telecommunications network receives a notification of an emergency situation, establishes a first geofence around a location of the emergency situation, determines a set of candidate responders registered to an area associated with the location, transmits a request for UE locations of the set of candidate responders to a location server and receives a response, determines which UEs of candidate responders are within an area bounded by the geofence, and transmits messages soliciting responders to the UEs.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BACKHEAN TIV whose telephone number is (571)272-5654. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 5:30-3:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/BACKHEAN TIV/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459