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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the 1st sentence repeats information in the title. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The following change is suggested: Delete the 1st sentence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 - 2, 5 - 10, 12 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dizengof et al. (US 20230328496 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dizengof discloses one or more computing systems of a carrier network (Fig. 2A shows carrier network; [0029]; [0068]), comprising:
memory storing computer program instructions for performing foreign emergency notification ([0025]);
and at least one processor configured to execute the computer program instructions ([0025]), wherein the computer program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to:
receive a message from an application running on a mobile device (Fig. 2A, user 204 has mobile device 202; Fig. 1, block 102; [0100] discloses “As shown at 102, the process 100 starts with the notification engine 220 receiving from the AML service 206 AML data comprising at least the MSISDN and (current) location of one of the cellular devices 202 used by its associated user 204 to report an emergency event.”) located in a foreign country that automatically detected that a foreign emergency number was called or texted by the mobile device by analyzing one or more packets sent to a foreign carrier network or a foreign Internet Service Provider (ISP) by the mobile device (Fig. 2A discloses cellular device transmits AML message with MSISDN and Location to AML service 206; [0070]; [0071] discloses “The AML message(s) transmitted by each such cellular device may include at least location information of the respective cellular device 202, for example, a geolocation, coordinates, a location relative to one or more reference locations, and/or the like and a MSISDN (MSISDN) (often interchangeably designated phone number or caller ID) of the respective cellular device.”; wherein packets sent would be in the AML message; [0073]; [0075]; wherein based on location information and MSISDN, one of ordinary skill in the art can determine if in a foreign country under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E ) ),
determine from the communication that a user of the mobile device is experiencing an emergency based on the received message ([0101]; [0102] discloses “The event data may include, for example, a type of the emergency event, for example, a car accident, a fire, a violence event, a medical event, and/or the like. In another example, the event data may include one or more media items, for example, a picture, a video clip, an audio clip captured by the cellular device 202 during the emergency event.”),
perform a lookup of one or more emergency notification contacts for the user of the mobile device (Fig. 1, block 106, 108; [0107] – [0109]),
and send one or more emergency notifications to respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts indicating that the emergency is occurring (Fig. 1, block 110; [0110] – [0111]).
As stated above, based on location of the cellular device 202 and its MSISDN (associated with home country), one of ordinary skill in the art can determine if the cellular device is in a foreign country or not. This is Obvious to Try (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use location and MSISDN, as disclosed by Dizengof, to determine if the mobile device is in the home country to not, as this can be used to route the call to the appropriate emergency service.
Regarding claim 2, Dizengof discloses the one or more emergency message notifications comprise a voice call with a recording, a voicemail message, a Short Message Service (SMS) message, a communication via a third party application running on the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts, or any combination thereof ([0114] discloses “….For example, the notification engine 220 may transmit the emergency notification(s) in one or more SMS messages….”).
Regarding claim 5, Dizengof discloses the computer program instructions are configured to cause the at least one processor to:
receive one or more Short Message Service (SMS) messages associated with the foreign emergency from the mobile device ([0075] discloses “For example, the AML messages transmitted by the cellular device 202 may include one or more SMS messages transmitted via one or more SMS services, cellular networks, PSTNs and/or the like”);
and send the one or more SMS messages to the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts ([0114] discloses “….For example, the notification engine 220 may transmit the emergency notification(s) in one or more SMS messages….”).
Regarding claim 6, Dizengof discloses sending a notification to the contact (Fig. 2A, 200 sends emergency notification to contact 212).
Dizengof does not disclose sending one or more additional notifications to domestic and/or international authorities pertaining to the emergency.
However, under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F), this is Obvious to Try or an Obvious Variation of what Dizengof discloses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to send the notification to additional authorities, as they could also respond to the emergency.
Regarding claim 7, Dizengof does not disclose periodically or continuously monitor for additional communications from the application of the mobile device; receive an additional communication from the application of the mobile device pertaining to the emergency; and send one or more additional notifications to the domestic and/or international authorities.
However, receiving “additional” communication and sending “additional” notifications is obvious to try or an obvious variation of what is disclosed in claim 1 (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive and send additional notifications as this would help in sending updated notification messages.
Regarding claim 8, Dizengof does not disclose periodically or continuously monitor for additional communications from the application of the mobile device; receive an additional communication from the application of the mobile device pertaining to the emergency; and send one or more additional emergency notifications to the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts.
However, receiving “additional” communication and sending “additional” notifications is obvious to try or an obvious variation of what is disclosed in claim 1 (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive and send additional notifications as this would help in sending updated notification messages.
Regarding claim 9, Dizengof discloses the one or more additional emergency notifications comprise an audio recording, a video, a Short Message Service (SMS) message, a communication via a third party application running on the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts, or any combination thereof ([0114] discloses “….For example, the notification engine 220 may transmit the emergency notification(s) in one or more SMS messages….”; [0035] discloses “Optionally, the AML message(s) transmitted by one or more of cellular devices to the AML service may include further event data relating to the emergency event, for example, a type of the emergency event, one or more media items (e.g., picture, audio, video, etc.) captured by the cellular device and/or the like”. These can be forwarded by the notification system 200 to contacts. Emergency personnel etc.).
Claim 10 is similarly analyzed as claims 1 and 2. Dizengof discloses the emergency message notification can be sent as an SMS ([0114]).
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 7.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claim 8.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 9.
Claims 3, 11, 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dizengof et al. (US 20230328496 A1) in view of Nagarajan et al. (US 20230300253 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Dizengof does not disclose the one or more emergency notifications are sent with a sufficiently high priority that the one or more emergency notifications are not dropped by one or more carrier networks and/or one or more ISPs serving the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts due to congestion.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Nagarajan discloses the one or more emergency notifications are sent with a sufficiently high priority that the one or more emergency notifications are not dropped by one or more carrier networks and/or one or more ISPs serving the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts due to congestion ([0033] discloses “… receive the one or more emergency call packets 304 and determine based on the one or more emergency call identifiers associated with the one or more emergency call packets 304 that the one or more emergency call packets 304 are associated with an emergency call 302 and thus should receive high priority, low latency treatment….”; wherein not dropping emergency packets is Obvious to Try under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E) since they carry emergency related information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as disclosed by Nagarajan, in the system of Dizengof because this would allow emergency packets to be transmitted since they are essential packets during an emergency.
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed as claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, Dizengof discloses a computer-implemented method for performing foreign (see below) emergency notification (Fig. 2A; [0029]; [0068]), comprising:
receiving, by a computing system of a home carrier network (Fig. 2A; [0032] discloses network, which is interpreted as the home network), a message from an application running on a mobile device (Fig. 2A, user 204 has mobile device 202; Fig. 1, block 102; [0100] discloses “As shown at 102, the process 100 starts with the notification engine 220 receiving from the AML service 206 AML data comprising at least the MSISDN and (current) location of one of the cellular devices 202 used by its associated user 204 to report an emergency event.”) located in a foreign country that automatically detected that a foreign emergency number was called or texted by the mobile device by analyzing one or more packets sent to a foreign carrier network or a foreign Internet Service Provider (ISP) by the mobile device (Fig. 2A discloses cellular device transmits AML message with MSISDN and Location to AML service 206; [0070]; [0071] discloses “The AML message(s) transmitted by each such cellular device may include at least location information of the respective cellular device 202, for example, a geolocation, coordinates, a location relative to one or more reference locations, and/or the like and a MSISDN (MSISDN) (often interchangeably designated phone number or caller ID) of the respective cellular device.”; wherein packets sent would be in the AML message; [0073]; [0075]; wherein based on location information and MSISDN, one of ordinary skill in the art can determine if in a foreign country under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E ));
responsive to the message, performing a lookup of one or more emergency notification contacts for the user of the mobile device, by the computing system of the home carrier network (Fig. 1, block 106, 108; [0107] – [0109]);
and sending, by the computing system of the home carrier network, one or more emergency notifications to respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts indicating that the emergency is occurring (Fig. 1, block 110; [0110] – [0111]).
As stated above, based on location of the cellular device 202 and its MSISDN (associated with home country), one of ordinary skill in the art can determine if the cellular device is in a foreign country or not. This is Obvious to Try (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use location and MSISDN, as disclosed by Dizengof, to determine if the mobile device is in the home country to not, as this can be used to route the call to the appropriate emergency service.
Dizengof does not disclose the one or more emergency notifications are sent with a sufficiently high priority that the one or more emergency notifications are not dropped by one or more carrier networks and/or one or more ISPs serving the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts due to congestion.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Nagarajan discloses the one or more emergency notifications are sent with a sufficiently high priority that the one or more emergency notifications are not dropped by one or more carrier networks and/or one or more ISPs serving the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts due to congestion ([0033] discloses “… receive the one or more emergency call packets 304 and determine based on the one or more emergency call identifiers associated with the one or more emergency call packets 304 that the one or more emergency call packets 304 are associated with an emergency call 302 and thus should receive high priority, low latency treatment….”; wherein not dropping emergency packets is Obvious to Try under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E) since they carry emergency related information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as disclosed by Nagarajan, in the system of Dizengof because this would allow emergency packets to be transmitted since they are essential packets during an emergency.
Regarding claim 18, Dizengof discloses sending a notification to the contact (Fig. 2A, 200 sends emergency notification to contact 212).
Dizengof does not disclose sending, by the computing system of the home carrier network, one or more additional notifications to domestic and/or international authorities pertaining to the emergency.
However, under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F), this is Obvious to Try or an Obvious Variation of what Dizengof discloses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to send the notification to additional authorities, as they could also respond to the emergency.
Regarding claim 19, Dizengof does not disclose periodically or continuously monitoring, by the computing system of the home carrier network, for additional communications from the application of the mobile device; receiving, by the computing system of the home carrier network, an additional communication from the application of the mobile device pertaining to the emergency; and sending, by the computing system of the home carrier network, one or more additional notifications to the domestic and/or international authorities.
However, receiving “additional” communication and sending “additional” notifications is obvious to try or an obvious variation of what is disclosed in claim 17 (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive and send additional notifications as this would help in sending updated notification messages.
Regarding claim 20, Dizengof does not disclose periodically or continuously monitoring, by the computing system of the home carrier network, for additional communications from the application of the mobile device; receiving, by the computing system of the home carrier network, an additional communication from the application of the mobile device pertaining to the emergency; and sending, by the computing system of the home carrier network, one or more additional emergency notifications to the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts.
However, receiving “additional” communication and sending “additional” notifications is obvious to try or an obvious variation of what is disclosed in claim 17 (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to receive and send additional notifications as this would help in sending updated notification messages.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dizengof et al. (US 20230328496 A1) in view of Alexander (US 20120087482 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Dizengof does not disclose receiving a recording of a telephone call associated with a foreign emergency number call from the mobile device;
and send the recording of the call to the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts.
However , Dizengof discloses ([0071]): “The AML message(s) transmitted by each such cellular device may include at least location information of the respective cellular device 202, for example, a geolocation, coordinates, a location relative to one or more reference locations, and/or the like and a MSISDN (MSISDN) (often interchangeably designated phone number or caller ID) of the respective cellular device.”; wherein packets sent would be in the AML message; [0073]; [0075]; wherein based on location information and MSISDN, one of ordinary skill in the art can determine if in a foreign country under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E ) ).
In the same field of endeavor, however, Alexander discloses receiving a recording of a telephone call associated with a emergency number call from the mobile device ([0027] discloses “The emergency call center will become a backup for the 911 system by recording in both speech and text.”);
and send the recording of the call to the respective mobile devices of the one or more emergency notification contacts ([0028] discloses “These recordings can also be forwarded to the 911 operator if they are able to receive them.” ; wherein forwarding them to contacts is an obvious variation under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale F) ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as disclosed by Alexander, in the system of Dizengof because this would allow a recording of the emergency call to be sent contacts and other emergency personnel.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to emergency notifications:
Rahman et al. (US 8249549 B1) discloses Automating Emergency Calls Globally.
Jafri et al. (US 12020548 B2) discloses Responder Network.
Richardson et al. (US 11109213 B2) discloses Pre-alert System For First Responders.
Elliot et al. (US 20120105203 A1) discloses system and method for providing personal alerts.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights