DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 18, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection necessitated due to claim amendments.
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 1-16, 18-19 recite the limitation "the content" in line 17 of independent claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17, 20 recite the limitation "the content" in line 17 of independent claim 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher (US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0111526), and further in view of Shurtz (US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0379470).
Regarding claim 1, Fletcher teaches a computer implemented method of prioritizing incoming emergency calls (Paragraphs 0167-0169), comprising:
using at least one processor (Fig. 1 item 108) for:
receiving at least one emergency call originating from at least one client device used to report at least one emergency event (Fig. 2 step S205, Paragraphs 0105, 0133, 0152);
computing an event zone for the at least one emergency event based on at least one event attribute of the at least one emergency event retrieved according to data extracted from the at least one emergency call (Fig. 2 steps S210-S245, Paragraphs 0105-0108, 0113, 0133-0136);
receiving at least one subsequent emergency call originating from at least one another client device (Paragraph 0132, 0142, 0152-0153 multiple incoming emergency calls i.e. subsequent calls);
computing a location of the at least one another client device with respect to the event zone of the at least one emergency event (Paragraphs 0105-0108, 0132-0133, 0143-0144 performing similar location determination for every incoming emergency call);
responding to the at least one subsequent emergency call with at least one automatically generated query (automated querying endpoint D user) according to the relative location of the at least one another client device (according to relative proximity location of emergency call device) (Paragraphs 0115-0119, 0137, 0139); and
prioritizing the at least one subsequent emergency call in a call queue according to a user response to the content of the at least one automatically generated query (Paragraphs 0117-0119, 0142) (Paragraphs 0101-0165 for complete details).
Fletcher does not specifically teach prioritizing the at least one subsequent emergency call in a call queue according to a user response to the content of the at least one automatically generated query received via the at least one another client device (i.e. emergency call device) to the at least one automatically generated query.
However, in the similar field, Shurtz teaches prioritizing the at least one emergency call in a call queue according to a user response to the content of the at least one automatically generated query received via the at least one another client device (i.e. emergency call device) to the at least one automatically generated query (Paragraph 0067 “messaging system being operative to prompt the calling party to provide one or more responses” (emphasis added) prompting in interactive manner and “messaging objects may be generated including”….” type/nature of the emergency situation as well as a priority indication of the emergency service call determined based on one or more responses provided by the calling party, etc.” (emphasis added) i.e. priority determined based on user responses to automated query for emergency call).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fletcher to include prioritizing the at least one emergency call in a call queue according to a user response to the content of the at least one automatically generated query received via the at least one another client device to the at least one automatically generated query as taught by Shurtz so that “priority indication of the emergency service call determined based on one or more responses provided by the calling party” (Shurtz, Paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 2, Fletcher teaches dynamically adjusting the event zone according to at least one event attribute retrieved according to data extracted from the at least one subsequent emergency call (Paragraphs 0114-0118, 0126, 0128 based on data from pictures, video etc. in changed direction).
Regarding claim 3, Fletcher teaches adjusting the event zone according to at least one physical feature identified at and/or in proximity to the event zone (Paragraphs 0107-0108 corner of two streets, multi-buildings, threshold based proximity).
Regarding claim 4, Fletcher teaches adjusting the event zone according to at least one environmental condition (Paragraph 0108 fire environment, 0126 chemical spill).
Regarding claim 6, Fletcher teaches adjusting the event zone according to at least one unrelated event and/or activity identified in proximity to a location of the event zone (Paragraph 0162 adjusting with location of unrelated new event).
Regarding claim 7, Fletcher teaches adjusting the at least one query based on the at least one event attribute of the at least one emergency event (Paragraph 0132 query adjusted based on location information of endpoint C).
Regarding claim 8, Shurtz teaches using at least one generative machine learning model for generating the at least one query (Paragraph 0067 “the interactive prompting session may be effectuated by an automated agent that may be an expert system based on technologies such as, e.g., artificial intelligence (AI), adaptive learning, pattern recognition, voice robotics, neural networks, and the like”).
Regarding claim 13, Fletcher teaches adjusting a graphical user interface (GUI) presented on a display of at least one call center terminal according to the prioritization (Paragraphs 0152-0165 adjusting GUI based on prioritization and de-prioritization).
Regarding claim 14, Fletcher teaches each of the at least one emergency call and/or the at least one subsequent emergency call is initiated by a user or an automated device (Paragraphs 0132-0133, 0152).
Regarding claim 15, Fletcher teaches the at least one event attribute is stored in an event log created for the at least one emergency event based on the at least one emergency call (Paragraphs 0045, 0086, 0130, 0139, 0144).
Regarding claim 16, Fletcher teaches updating the event log based on the at least one subsequent emergency call (Paragraphs 0045, 0086, 0130, 0139, 0144 each call related information is stored).
Regarding claim 17, Fletcher teaches a system for prioritizing incoming emergency calls (Paragraphs 0101-0102, 0167-0169), comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute a code, the code comprising: (Fig. 1 items 108, 0112) for:
code instructions to receive at least one emergency call originating from at least one client device used to report at least one emergency event (Fig. 2 step S205, Paragraphs 0105, 0133, 0152);
code instructions to compute an event zone for the at least one emergency event based on at least one event attribute of the at least one emergency event retrieved according to data extracted from the at least one emergency call (Fig. 2 steps S210-S245, Paragraphs 0105-0108, 0113, 0133-0136);
code instructions to receive at least one subsequent emergency call originating from at least one another client device (Paragraph 0132, 0142, 0152-0153 multiple incoming emergency calls i.e. subsequent calls);
code instructions to compute a location of the at least one another client device with respect to the event zone of the at least one emergency event (Paragraphs 0105-0108, 0132-0133, 0143-0144 performing similar location determination for every incoming emergency call);
code instructions to respond to the at least one subsequent emergency call with at least one query generated automatically (automated querying endpoint D user) according to the relative location of the at least one another client device (according to relative proximity location of emergency call device) (Paragraphs 0115-0119, 0137, 0139); and
code instructions to prioritize the at least one subsequent emergency call in a call queue according to the content a user response to the at least one automatically generated query (Paragraphs 0117-0119, 0142) (Paragraphs 0101-0165 for complete details).
Fletcher does not specifically teach to prioritize the at least one subsequent emergency call in a call queue according to the content of a user response to the at least one automatically generated query received via the at least one another client device (i.e. emergency call device) to the at least one automatically generated query.
However, in the similar field, Shurtz teaches to prioritize the at least one subsequent emergency call in a call queue according to the content of a user response to the at least one automatically generated query received via the at least one another client device (i.e. emergency call device) to the at least one automatically generated query (Paragraph 0067 “messaging system being operative to prompt the calling party to provide one or more responses” (emphasis added) prompting in interactive manner and “messaging objects may be generated including”….” type/nature of the emergency situation as well as a priority indication of the emergency service call determined based on one or more responses provided by the calling party, etc.” (emphasis added) i.e. priority determined based on user responses to automated query for emergency call).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fletcher to prioritize the at least one subsequent emergency call in a call queue according to the content of a user response to the at least one automatically generated query received via the at least one another client device to the at least one automatically generated query as taught by Shurtz so that “priority indication of the emergency service call determined based on one or more responses provided by the calling party” (Shurtz, Paragraph 0067).
Claims 5, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher and Shurtz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hamilton (US Patent No. 8,976,939).
Regarding claim 5, Fletcher and Shurtz do not teach adjusting the event zone according to at least one timing parameter.
However, in the similar field, Hamilton teaches using timing parameter to determine emergency call priority (col. 7 ll. 33-53).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fletcher and Shurtz to include timing parameter in processing emergency call as taught by Hamilton in order to dynamically handle events such as “sporting events, holiday activities, festivals, concerts, parades, and/or other planned events” (Hamilton, col. 7 ll. 37-38).
Regarding claim 8, Hamilton teaches using at least one generative machine learning model for generating the at least one query (col. 10 ll. 65-col. 11 ll. 12 system learning from historical data and generating user selectable options/actions).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher and Shurtz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knopp (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0189913).
Regarding claim 9, Fletcher and Shurtz do not teach prioritizing the at least one subsequent emergency call according to at least one call attribute responsive to failure to receive a verbal response during a predefined time period.
However, in the similar field, Knopp teaches prioritizing the at least one subsequent emergency call according to at least one call attribute responsive to failure to receive a verbal response during a predefined time period (Paragraphs 0092-0093).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fletcher and Shurtz to include prioritizing the at least one subsequent emergency call according to at least one call attribute responsive to failure to receive a verbal response during a predefined time period as taught by Knopp so that : When the user has not responded within the predetermined time (no at block 320), the mobile application 1012 (or the safety analysis engine 120) follows up with the authorities” (Knopp, Paragraph 0092).
Claims 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher and Shurtz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dizengof (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0288224).
Regarding claim 10, Fletcher teaches using artificial intelligence, fuzzy logic (Paragraph 0092) and Shurtz teaches the prioritization of the subsequent emergency calls is conducted (based on interactive query) using at least one trained machine learning model (Paragraph 0067 “the interactive prompting session may be effectuated by an automated agent that may be an expert system based on technologies such as, e.g., artificial intelligence (AI), adaptive learning, pattern recognition, voice robotics, neural networks, and the like”, thus obviously teaching claimed limitation), but Fletcher and Shurtz do not explicitly teach the prioritization of the subsequent emergency calls is conducted using at least one trained machine learning model.
However, in the similar field, Dizengof teaches the prioritization of the subsequent emergency calls is conducted using at least one trained machine learning model (Paragraphs 0034, 0121, 0126).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fletcher and Shurtz explicitly to include the prioritization of the subsequent emergency calls conducted using at least one trained machine learning model as taught by Dizengof in order to “significantly improve estimation and/or evaluation of the potential emergency event based on information acquired by analyzing previous incoming emergency calls with respect to the emergency events reported by these previous incoming emergency calls” (Dizengof, Paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 12, Shurtz teaches using a plurality of machine learning models each trained for prioritizing emergency calls relating to a respective one of a plurality of emergency events (Paragraph 0067 multiple/ different machine learning models for different incidents). Dizengof teaches using a plurality of machine learning models each trained for prioritizing emergency calls relating to a respective one of a plurality of emergency events (Paragraphs 0034, 0121, 0126 multiple/ different machine learning models for different incidents).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher, Shurtz and Dizengof as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Frenkel (US Patent No. 11,375,063).
Regarding claim 11, Fletcher, Shurtz and Dizengof do not teach the at least one trained machine learning model is further trained to filter out false positive emergency calls irrelevant to the at least one emergency event.
However, in the similar field, Frenkel teaches the at least one trained machine learning model is further trained to filter out false positive emergency calls irrelevant to the at least one emergency event (col. 3 ll. 55-col. 6 ll. 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fletcher, Shurtz and Dizengof to include the at least one trained machine learning model further trained to filter out false positive emergency calls irrelevant to the at least one emergency event as taught by Frenkel in order to filter out prank calls.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher and Shurtz as applied to claims 1, 17 above, and further in view of Mensch (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0412856).
Regarding claim 18, Fletcher and Shurtz do not teach an automatically generated query is converted to speech by Natural Language Processing (NLP).
However, in the similar field, Mensch teaches an automatically generated query is converted to speech by Natural Language Processing (NLP) (Paragraphs 0140, 0181, 0212, 0214).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fletcher and Shurtz to include an automatically generated query converted to speech by Natural Language Processing (NLP) as taught by Mensch so that “the series of questions may be presented automatically through a text-to-voice application” (Mensch, Paragraph 0181).
Regarding claim 19, Mensch teaches applying NLP to a subsequent emergency call to analyze speech responding to the at least one logged automatic queries to extract the response (Paragraphs 0014, 0130, 0140, 0178, 0205, 0216-0218).
Regarding claim 20, Mensch teaches applying NLP to a subsequent emergency call to analyze speech responding to the automatic generated queries to extract the response (Paragraphs 0014, 0130, 0140, 0178, 0205, 0216-0218).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher and Shurtz as applied to claims 1, 17 above, and further in view of Frenkel (US Patent No. 11,375,063).
Regarding claim 19, Fletcher and Shurtz do not teach applying NLP to a subsequent emergency call to analyze speech responding to the at least one logged automatic queries to extract the response.
However, in the similar field, Frenkel teaches applying NLP to a subsequent emergency call to analyze speech responding to the at least one logged automatic queries to extract the response (col. 3 ll. 55-col. 4 ll. 51, col. 5 ll. 16-col. 6 ll. 65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fletcher and Shurtz to include applying NLP to a subsequent emergency call to analyze speech responding to the at least one logged automatic queries to extract the response as taught by Frenkel so that “call priority analysis system 100, via prioritization algorithm 130, calculates a priority of the current call interaction from the extracted information and the text” (Frenkel, col. 6 ll. 43-45).
Regarding claim 20, Fletcher and Shurtz do not teach applying NLP to a subsequent emergency call to analyze speech responding to the automatic generated queries to extract the response.
However, in the similar field, Frenkel teaches applying NLP to a subsequent emergency call to analyze speech responding to the automatic generated queries to extract the response (col. 3 ll. 55-col. 4 ll. 51, col. 5 ll. 16-col. 6 ll. 65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Fletcher and Shurtz to include applying NLP to a subsequent emergency call to analyze speech responding to the automatic generated queries to extract the response as taught by Frenkel so that “call priority analysis system 100, via prioritization algorithm 130, calculates a priority of the current call interaction from the extracted information and the text” (Frenkel, col. 6 ll. 43-45).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7547. 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694