DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of species I and III [please see interview summary mailed 10-22-2025], claims 3-4 and 10-16 in the reply filed on 11-3-2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 10-16, 20-21 and 23-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horelik 20220014895 in view of deCharms 20140368601.
As to claim 1, Horelik discloses a responder dispatch coordination system (RDC) (see par. 0003) comprising a memory, a network component, and at least one processor (see fig. 1a,1b), wherein the RDC is communicatively coupled to an emergency data source [122,150, 262] and a plurality of responder devices [110] (see par. 0045) and wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from an emergency service provider (ESP) [130], a dispatch request comprising a user identifier associated with an electronic device [receiving an emergency data request comprising the device identifier associated with the emergency alert from the first ESP] (see par. 0021);
transmit, to the emergency data source, an emergency data request comprising the user identifier; receive, from the emergency data source, emergency data comprising an emergency location associated with the user identifier (transmitting the location landmark associated with the emergency alert to the first ESP in response to receiving the emergency data request comprising the device identifier associated with the emergency alert from the first ESP) (see par. 0021); and
generate a dispatch notification for the dispatch request, transmit the dispatch notification to at least one responder device of the plurality of responder devices [a first responder responds to a request for emergency assistance placed by a user via a user communication device], and display the dispatch notification within a first graphical user interface (GUI) of the at least one responder device including a selectable respond button for a responder to identify as responding to the dispatch request [responder devices have optionally installed a responder device program similar to PSAP display module 146. In some embodiments, the responder device program displays the emergency location on a map] (see par. 0051-0052, 0090, 0108, 0119, 0197, 0199),
transmit, to the at least one responder device, the emergency data comprising the emergency location for display within the first GUI of the responder device [the responder device program displays the emergency location on a map] (see fig. 5, 13A, 13B; par. 0051, 0100).
detect a selection of the selectable respond button from within the first GUI; and transmit a notification to the ESP regarding the selection [a message can be sent to responders located in the area and the responder who is able to respond is contacted and dispatched] (see par. 0119). Since Horelik is using a display similar to PSAP display, the dispatch notification is not displayed along with the button. In an analogous art, deCharms discloses generate a dispatch notification for the dispatch request, transmit the dispatch notification to at least one responder device of the plurality of responder devices, and display the dispatch notification within a first graphical user interface (GUI) of the at least one responder device, the dispatch notification displayed along with a selectable respond button for a responder to identify as responding to the dispatch request; detect a selection of the selectable respond button from within the first GUI; and transmit a notification regarding the selection [the auto-answer [for requestor] calling feature can be a virtual button on the responder device 404] (see par. 0181-0185). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of allowing a first responder to provide aid to a person in need; thereby, possibly saving lives.
As to claim 2, Horelik discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the user identifier is associated with an emergency call routed to the ESP (see par. 0021).
As to claim 4, Horelik discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to detect a selection of the dispatch notification from within the GUI of the responder device and transmit the emergency data to the responder device in response to detecting the selection of the dispatch notification [a message can be sent to responders located in the area and the responder who is able to respond is contacted and dispatched] (see par. 0052, 0090, 0108, 0119, 0123, 0199).
As to claim 10, Horelik discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to provide a first responder application to the responder device and transmit the emergency data comprising the emergency location to the responder device through the first responder application [the responder device program displays the emergency location on a map] (see fig. 5, 13A, 13B; par. 0051, 0100).
As to claims 11-12 and 25-26, Horelik discloses the system of claim 10, wherein the emergency data source [122,150, 262] is an emergency response data platform (ERDP) [emergency management system 120] communicatively coupled to the ESP (see par. 0044) and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: receive, from the first responder application, a selection of a dispatch notification generated for the dispatch request from within a GUI of the first responder application [a message can be sent to responders located in the area and the responder who is able to respond is contacted and dispatched] (see par. 0052, 0090, 0108, 0119, 0123, 0199); receive, from the first responder application, a responder location responder location for transmission to the ESP through an emergency response application provided to the ESP by the ERDP (see par. 0050, 0207). Horelik fails to disclose a responder identifier. However, when there is more than one responder it is inherently required to use an identifier in order to know the location of each responder, and it would be obvious to repeat the same technique of the user identifier for the responder (see par. 0021, 0205), since it going to bring the same predicable result of identifying the user of the device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to use a responder identifier for the simple purpose of identifying the responder and communicate with the right responder.
As to claims 13 and 27, Horelik discloses system of claim 12, wherein the emergency response application comprises a second graphical user interface comprising an interactive map and wherein the responder location is displayed within the interactive map (see fig. 7; par. 0129).
As to claim 14, Horelik discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the responder location [718] is generated by the responder device (see par. 0042, 0050, 0207).
As to claims 15-16 and 28, Horelik discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive, from the first responder application, an audio or video recording and transmit the audio or video recording to the ERDP for transmission to the ESP [A cell phone … streams audio or video from microphones and cameras integrated into the cell phone to the clearinghouse 250 through the other data ingestion module 253.] (see fig. 2; par. 0067, 0071, 0208). Horelik fails to disclose wherein the audio or video recording is captured by the responder device. In an analogous art, deCharms discloses disclose wherein the audio or video recording is captured by both devices including the responder device [For example, the disclosed technologies can allow for users to quickly obtain access to and to involve appropriate remote parties in their current physical situation in an effort to avoid any harm from befalling the users, while at the same time storing information (e.g., video recording) … a user may initiate two-way video conferencing with a friend, police, or emergency responder as a means of allowing the responder to help facilitate a secure outcome for the user.] (see par. 0004). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the teachings for the simple purpose of helping facilitate a secure outcome for the user.
Regarding claims 20-21 and 23-24, they are the corresponding method claims of systems claims 1-4 and 10. Therefore, claims 20-21 and 23-24 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM M-F.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights