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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment made dated 6/9/2026 does not contain any new matter and has been accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 30 and 40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding independent claims 30 and 40, Applicant argues that the reference Alexander does not disclose the limitations of,
receiving a query from the computing device of the ESP requesting additional data associated with the emergency or the user;
responsive to the query, querying a database to retrieve the additional data using a user identifier of the user.
Examiner would like to introduce the reference of Faucher et al. to disclose said newly added limitations, as shown below.
Faucher does disclose said limitations of
receiving a query from the computing device of the ESP requesting additional data associated with the emergency or the user ([0021]-[0022]: emergency operator can request mor information on said user in need of assistance);
responsive to the query, querying a database to retrieve the additional data using a user identifier of the user ([0021]-[0022]: sending more information of the user as requested).
Therefore, due to the broadness of the claim language and the explanation provided above and the newly cited reference, the claims are still not yet in condition for allowance, and are still rejected as shown below.
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.
Claim(s) 30-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al. (US 2009/0309742; hereinafter Alexander) in view of Laurent (US 2018/0176271) in further view of Faucher et al. (US 2004/0266390; hereinafter Faucher).
Regarding claims 30 and 40, Alexander discloses a method for providing a communication pathway for emergencies by an emergency assistance system (EAS), the method comprising:
receiving an alert of an emergency associated with a user, the alert including a location and additional data associated with the emergency (Fig. 1, [0055]: attaining new emergency alerts and determining which users are affected and alerting said users and other emergency contacts);
based on the location, transmitting the alert to a computing device of an Emergency Service Provider (ESP) associated with the location ([0139], [0160]: relaying emergency data to rescue personnel, such as National Guard, to help rescue people affected by the state of emergency; [0157]: wherein the emergency contact can become the rescuers by tracking and finding survivors in an emergency situation);
displaying the alert, the location, and at least some of the additional data in an entry on an emergency data feed of a graphical user interface of an ESP computing device, the emergency data feed comprising a plurality of entries for a plurality of alerts ([0101]: application displaying location of alert and affected area; [0108]-[0110], [0138], [0146]: can support plurality of emergency data feeds [0060]);
Alexander discloses all the particulars of the claims but is unclear about the new amended limitations. However, in combination with Alexander, Laurent does disclose said limitations of,
displaying a selectable option on the emergency data feed of the ESP computing device for the ESP to initiate initiating a messaging session between the ESP computing device and a communication device of the user;
receiving a selection, via the graphical user interface of the ESP computing device of the selectable option on the emergency data feed; and
responsive to receiving the selection of the selectable option on the emergency data feed, initiating a messaging session between the ESP computing device and the communication device of the user ([0047] and Fig. 7 that User D may select bubble 708 to initiate direct communication with User A to render emergency assistance, also shown in Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Laurent’s disclosure to provide direct communication to further provide emergency assistance.
Alexander in view of Laurent discloses all the particulars of the claim but is unclear about the limitations of,
receiving a query from the computing device of the ESP requesting additional data associated with the emergency or the user;
responsive to the query, querying a database to retrieve the additional data using a user identifier of the user.
However, Faucher does disclose said limitations of
receiving a query from the computing device of the ESP requesting additional data associated with the emergency or the user ([0021]-[0022]: emergency operator can request mor information on said user in need of assistance);
responsive to the query, querying a database to retrieve the additional data using a user identifier of the user ([0021]-[0022]: sending more information of the user as requested).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of invention to incorporate Faucher’s disclosure to provide more information of the victim so emergency rescue personnel can be more equipped to assist the victim.
Regarding claims 31 and 41, Alexander discloses further comprising receiving one or more updates associated with the emergency and the displayed location is updated based on the one or more updates ([0097], [0101]-[0102]: continuously updating affected users of various alerts affecting users at their location).
Regarding claims 32 and 42, Alexander discloses wherein the plurality of entries displayed in the emergency data feed are selected based on location data for each of the plurality of alerts being within at least one geofence ([0101]-[0105]: users will be notified when near the affected area or will be traveling in the path of affected area).
Regarding claims 33 and 43, Alexander discloses wherein the ESP is associated with at least one geofence, and the plurality of entries in the emergency data feed are within the at least one geofence ([0101]-[0105]: users will be notified when near the affected area or will be traveling in the path of affected area).
Regarding claims 34 and 44, Alexander further comprising determining an emergency hotspot from one or more locations associated with one or more of the plurality of alerts ([0101]-[0105]: users will be notified when near the affected area or will be traveling in the path of affected area) .
Regarding claims 35 and 45, Alexander discloses wherein the communication device includes a messaging application in communication with the EAS, the messaging application including one or more selectable options for the user to enter a status, contact emergency contacts, or mark the user as safe ([0137]: users able to report they are OK).
Regarding claims 36 and 46, Alexander discloses wherein the communication device includes a messaging application in communication with the EAS, the messaging application including a selectable option for the user to mark the user as safe ([0137]: users able to report they are OK).
Regarding claims 37 and 47, Alexander discloses wherein the emergency data feed includes a weblink that links to a website comprising audio, image, or video data relevant to the emergency ([0062]: website having priority alerts, [0067]).
Regarding claims 38 and 48, Alexander discloses wherein the weblink or the website expires after a predetermined period of time (Claim 1: being able to remove expired alerts when time expires).
Regarding claims 39 and 49, Alexander discloses wherein the emergency data feed displays at least one of a user profile of the user, a profile picture of the user, a username or handle of the user, a social media network identifier of the user, or a last status update of the user ([0138]: emergency contact/responder may receive emergency info on the affected user, including user status).
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 CHUCK HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7866. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am - 6pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/CHUCK HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights