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 .
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ananth et al. US Patent No.: 11,012,874 B1, hereinafter, ‘Ananth’.
Consider Claim 1, Ananth teaches a method, comprising: receiving, by a network device (e.g., The HAP-IAP node 500), an emergency call notice message (i.e., “emergency call”), wherein the emergency call notice message indicates that an emergency call was placed from a user equipment (UE) device using a visited network(e.g., this is met based on col. 10 lines 27-40 “the UE 505 in the geographic area may send a signal to the HAP-IAB node 500 indicating that it is making an emergency call…the signal may include an emergency number being dialed by the UE 505 or other information identifying that the call being placed by the UE 505 is an emergency call”) (note: visited network is met a based on the network from which the UE is calling- The claims do not outline the technical distinction between a visited network and home network. A PHOSITA would understand that the technical features of these networks can be the same. The technical requirements are met based on the understanding that visited vs home is based on a “roaming agreement”); comparing, by a network device, the emergency call notice message with outage data for a home network(e.g., col. 10 lines 27-40 “When the HAP-IAB node 500 receives emergency calls from a number of UEs in the geographic area that exceed a threshold number, the HAP-IAB node 500 may determine that there is an emergency in the geographic area”)(i.e., the outage data is met based on logging emergency calls and the threshold); and reporting, by a network device and based on the comparing, a network outage associated with the emergency call notice message(i.e., the outage is made known(reporting) by establishment of an “emergency IAB backhaul link” )(e.g., this was met by col. 10 lines 27-41 “After receiving the signal with the indication that the call is an emergency call, the HAP-IAB node 500 may establish an emergency IAB backhaul link to the second network 720 based on the previously stored information in the memory 520.).
Consider Claim 9, Ananth teaches a network device (the HAP-IAB node 500), comprising: a processor (e.g., see figure 7A)configured execute instructions to: receive an emergency call notice message, wherein the emergency call notice message indicates that an emergency call was placed from a user equipment (UE) device using a visited network(e.g., this is met based on col. 10 lines 27-40 “the UE 505 in the geographic area may send a signal to the HAP-IAB node 500 indicating that it is making an emergency call…. the signal may include an emergency number being dialed by the UE 505 or other information identifying that the call being placed by the UE 505 is an emergency call”) (note: visited network is met a based on the network from which the UE is calling- The claims do not outline the technical distinction between a visited network and home network. A PHOSITA would understand that the technical features of these networks can be the same. The technical requirements are met based on the understanding that visited vs home is based on a “roaming agreement”); compare the emergency call notice message with outage data for a home network(e.g., col. 10 lines 27-40 “When the HAP-IAB node 500 receives emergency calls from a number of UEs in the geographic area that exceed a threshold number, the HAP-IAB node 500 may determine that there is an emergency in the geographic area”)(i.e., the outage data is met based on logging emergency calls and the threshold); and report, based on the comparing, a network outage associated with the emergency call notice message(i.e., the outage is made known(reporting) by establishment of an “emergency IAB backhaul link” )(e.g., this was met by col. 10 lines 27-41 “After receiving the signal with the indication that the call is an emergency call, the HAP-IAB node 500 may establish an emergency IAB backhaul link to the second network 720 based on the previously stored information in the memory 520.).
Consider Claims 5 and 13, Ananth teaches wherein receiving the emergency call notice message comprises: receiving the emergency call notice message via the home network (e.g., this is met based on col. 10 lines 27-40 “the UE 505 in the geographic area may send a signal to the HAP-IAB node 500 indicating that it is making an emergency call…. the signal may include an emergency number being dialed by the UE 505 or other information identifying that the call being placed by the UE 505 is an emergency call”) (note: home network is met a based on the network from which the UE is calling- The claims do not outline the technical distinction between a visited network and home network. A PHOSITA would understand that the technical features of these networks can be the same. The technical requirements are met based on the understanding that visited vs home is based on a “roaming agreement”).
Consider Claims 7 and 15, Ananth teaches wherein the home network includes a mobile network and wherein the network device is associated with the home network of the UE device (e.g., this is met based on col. 10 lines 27-40 “the UE 505 in the geographic area may send a signal to the HAP-IAB node 500 indicating that it is making an emergency call…. the signal may include an emergency number being dialed by the UE 505 or other information identifying that the call being placed by the UE 505 is an emergency call”) (note: home network is met a based on the network from which the UE is calling- The claims do not outline the technical distinction between a visited network and home network. A PHOSITA would understand that the technical features of these networks can be the same. The technical requirements are met based on the understanding that visited vs home is based on a “roaming agreement”).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananth et al. US Patent No.: 11,012,874 B1, hereinafter, ‘Ananth’ in view of Thomas et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2004/0017311 A1, hereinafter, ‘Thomas’ and further in view of Cohen et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2020/0314621 A1, hereinafter, ‘Cohen’ and further in view of De Leo et al. US Patent No.: 9, 936,364, hereinafter, ‘De Leo’.
Consider Claims 2 and 10, Anath teaches wherein the emergency call notice message includes: a called number of the emergency call (e.g., “the signal may include an emergency number being dialed by the UE 505 or other information identifying that the call being placed by the UE 505 is an emergency call.”-col. 10 lines 27- 41) information that identifies a device-based location at the time of the emergency call (i.e., this is met based on the signal from the geographic area –“The HAP-IAB node 500 monitors the geographic area for emergency calls from UE. The UE 505 in the geographic area may send a signal to the HAP-IAB node 500 indicating that it is making an emergency call. col. 10 lines 27- 41).
However, Ananth does not specify a calling party identifier of the emergency call, time of the emergency call and a network identifier of the visited network used for the emergency call.
In analogous art, Thomas teaches in paragraph 0005 – “the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has mandated that all mobile units should have a built-in location feature, such that mobile units are able to compute and transmit their location (to an accuracy of within 125 m) to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)” .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include location data of the emergency call per FCC mandate.
In analogous art, Cohen teaches in 0110 – “a time-stamp characterizing at least one event relevant to the emergency” and 0418 teaches – “data regarding the emergency (e.g. the mere binary fact that an emergency has been detected and/or its location and/or its time-stamp) may be sent from all available modems/phones”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include time data of the emergency call for the purpose enhancing alerting of mobile call.
De Leo teaches “…the mobile device transmits the emergency wireless network identifier …to determine location” see col. 5 line 34- col. 5 line 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to date to include a network identifier of the visited network used for the emergency call for the purpose of determining location. In this particular case a WLAN would be considered the visited network of a cellular radio phone.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananth et al. US Patent No.: 11,012,874 B1, hereinafter, ‘Ananth’ in view of Cheng et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2013/ 0149987 A1, hereinafter, ‘Cheng’.
Consider Claims 3 and 11, Ananth teaches the claimed invention except wherein the reporting comprises: assigning a category code to the emergency call notice message based on the comparing.
In analogous art, Cheng teaches in 0007 - FIG. 3 shows a table describing the required specified emergency service category values for an existing 3GPP communications environment when a message sender issues an emergency notification the category values categorize various emergencies per category code.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the reporting comprises: assigning a category code to the emergency call notice message based on the comparing for the purpose of determining and routing emergency communications.
Consider Claims 4 and 12, Anath teaches the claimed invention except wherein the assigning further comprises identifying a category for the emergency call notice message as one of: a first category indicating the emergency call notice message is consistent with a known outage in the home network, a second category indicating that the emergency call notice message is not related to a known outage and the device-based location is within a coverage area of the home network, or a third category indicating that the emergency call notice message is not related to a known outage and the device-based location is not within a coverage area of the home network.
In analogous art, Cheng teaches the claimed invention except wherein the assigning further comprises identifying a category for the emergency call notice message as one of: a first category indicating the emergency call notice message is consistent with a known outage in the home network(i.e., figure 3 illustrates specific categories of emergencies as identified), a second category indicating that the emergency call notice message is not related to a known outage and the device-based location is within a coverage area of the home network, or a third category indicating that the emergency call notice message is not related to a known outage and the device-based location is not within a coverage area of the home network.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include wherein the assigning further comprises identifying a category for the emergency call notice message as one of: a first category indicating the emergency call notice message is consistent with a known outage in the home network for the purpose of determining and routing emergency communications.
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananth et al. US Patent No.: 11,012,874 B1, hereinafter, ‘Ananth’ in view of Freeman et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2025/0133369 A1, hereinafter, ‘Freeman’.
Consider Claims 6 and 14, Ananth teaches the claimed invention except wherein receiving the emergency call notice message comprises: receiving the emergency call notice message from the UE device after the emergency call is connected to a public safety answering point (PSAP).
In analogous art, Freeman teaches 0036- “device 300 can transmit WLAN data 202, comprising the SSID utilized by RG 312 to PSAP 110. Appreciably, PSAP 110 can forward WLAN data 202 to emergency services entity 114. In some embodiments, device 300 can forward WLAN data 202 directly to emergency services entity 114. Regardless, emergency services entity 114 can actively scan for any SSID that is provided in WLAN data 202 in order to, for instance, more quickly or efficiently locate the site of the emergency situation
wherein receiving the emergency call notice message comprises: receiving the emergency call notice message from the UE device after the emergency call is connected to a public safety answering point (PSAP).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to try wherein receiving the emergency call notice message comprises: receiving the emergency call notice message from the UE device after the emergency call is connected to a public safety answering point (PSAP) in order to, for instance, more quickly or efficiently locate the site of the emergency situation.
Claim(s) 8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananth et al. US Patent No.: 11,012,874 B1, hereinafter, ‘Ananth’ in view of Persson et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2012/0046009 A1, hereinafter, ‘Persson’.
Consider Claims 8 and 16, Ananth teaches the claimed invention except wherein the comparing comprises: obtaining reported network outage data for the home network, and comparing the network outage data with a time and device-based location information provided in the emergency call notice message.
In analogous art, Persson teaches in at least 0038 “due to the pervasiveness of mobile communication devices 10 may be possible for emergency response centers to determine the occurrence of accidents involving large groups of people by correlating the time and/or location information in emergency message transmitted from different mobile communication devices. For example, a bus accident or building collapse may result in near simultaneous emergency messages to an emergency response center. Based on the time and/or location information in the emergency messages, the emergency response center may quickly determine that a major accident has occurred and coordinate the response of emergency personnel.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try wherein the comparing comprises: obtaining reported network outage data for the home network, and comparing the network outage data with a time and device-based location information provided in the emergency call notice message (i.e., determining or confirming the location by comparing locations and times of a set of data to the locations and times of another set to confirm based on cross referencing.) for the purpose of confirming occurrence of an event (e.g., an outage is a form of emergency).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananth et al. US Patent No.: 11,012,874 B1, hereinafter, ‘Ananth’ in view of Thomas et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2004/0017311 A1, hereinafter, ‘Thomas’.
Consider Claim 17, Ananth teaches a method comprising: detecting, by a user equipment (UE) device, that an emergency call was placed from the UE device over a visited network and sending, by the UE device, the emergency call notice message (e.g., this is met based on col. 10 lines 27-40 “the UE 505 in the geographic area may send a signal to the HAP-IAB node 500 indicating that it is making an emergency call…. the signal may include an emergency number being dialed by the UE 505 or other information identifying that the call being placed by the UE 505 is an emergency call”) (note: visited network is met a based on the network from which the UE is calling- The claims do not outline the technical distinction between a visited network and home network. A PHOSITA would understand that the technical features of these networks can be the same. The technical requirements are met based on the understanding that visited vs home is based on a “roaming agreement”),
However, Ananth does not teach by the UE device collecting information identifying a device-based location at the time of the emergency call; generating, by the UE device, an emergency call notice message that includes the information identifying the device-based location.
In analogous art, Thomas teaches in paragraph 0005 – “the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has mandated that all mobile units should have a built-in location feature, such that mobile units are able to compute and transmit their location (to an accuracy of within 125 m) to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an emergency call notice message that includes the information identifying the device-based location for the purpose enhancing alerting of mobile call.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananth et al. US Patent No.: 11,012,874 B1, hereinafter, ‘Ananth’ in view of Thomas et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2004/0017311 A1, hereinafter, ‘Thomas’ and further in view of Cohen et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2020/0314621 A1, hereinafter, ‘Cohen’ and further in view of De Leo et al. US Patent No.: 9, 936,364, hereinafter, ‘De Leo’.
Consider Claim 18 Anath teaches wherein the emergency call notice message includes: a called number of the emergency call (e.g., “the signal may include an emergency number being dialed by the UE 505 or other information identifying that the call being placed by the UE 505 is an emergency call.”-col. 10 lines 27- 41) information that identifies a device-based location at the time of the emergency call (i.e., this is met based on the signal from the geographic area –“The HAP-IAB node 500 monitors the geographic area for emergency calls from UE. The UE 505 in the geographic area may send a signal to the HAP-IAB node 500 indicating that it is making an emergency call. col. 10 lines 27- 41).
However, Ananth does not specify a calling party identifier of the emergency call, time of the emergency call and a network identifier of the visited network used for the emergency call.
In analogous art, Thomas teaches in paragraph 0005 – “the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has mandated that all mobile units should have a built-in location feature, such that mobile units are able to compute and transmit their location (to an accuracy of within 125 m) to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)” .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include location data of the emergency call per FCC mandate.
In analogous art, Cohen teaches in 0110 – “a time-stamp characterizing at least one event relevant to the emergency” and 0418 teaches – “data regarding the emergency (e.g. the mere binary fact that an emergency has been detected and/or its location and/or its time-stamp) may be sent from all available modems/phones”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include time data of the emergency call for the purpose enhancing alerting of mobile call.
De Leo teaches “…the mobile device transmits the emergency wireless network identifier …to determine location” see col. 5 line 34- col. 5 line 10.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing to date to include a network identifier of the visited network used for the emergency call for the purpose of determining location. In this particular case a WLAN would be considered the visited network of a cellular radio phone.
Consider Claim 19, Ananth teaches wherein sending the emergency call notice message includes: sending the emergency call notice message to a network device associated with a home network of the UE device (i.e., the connection is that the HAP provides backhaul/emergency services – col. 1 line 52 – col. 2 line 12).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ananth et al. US Patent No.: 11,012,874 B1, hereinafter, ‘Ananth’ in view of Thomas et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2004/0017311 A1, hereinafter, ‘Thomas’ and further in view of Ryan et al. US Patent Pub. No.: 2017/0094490, hereinafter, Ryan et al. US Patent Pub. No.:2017/0094490, hereinafter, ‘Ryan’.
Consider Claim 20, Ananth as modified Thomas teaches the claimed invention except by further comprising: storing, after the generating, the emergency call notice message until the UE device connects to a network that permits non-emergency access.
In analogous art, Ryan teaches in 0129 “it is possible that a person in distress is outside of a cellular network coverage area. This could be in a remote location during a hiking or sailing trip or in other out of coverage areas such as an underground car park or elevator. An embodiment enables an emergency notification to be stored on the mobile phone for relay to the dispatch center as soon as network conditions allow the message to be sent.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ananth as modified Thomas to include storing, after the generating, the emergency call notice message until the UE device connects to a network that permits non-emergency access for the purpose of wireless communication in a emergency situation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES TERRELL SHEDRICK whose telephone number is (571)272-8621. The examiner can normally be reached 8A-5P.
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, Matthew D Anderson can be reached at 571 272 4177. 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.
/CHARLES T SHEDRICK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646