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 .
Drawings
The drawing (Fig. 1) is objected to because the Fig showing empty boxes with number, for example (box 105 refers to control hub. Applicant is required to replace the sheet with drawing showing the boxes as refers to in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 2-5, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 teaches “call passes a human voice test”, claim 2 depending on claim 1, which also teaches “the call passes a human voice test”, it is not clear and vague if there are two different voice human tests or the applicant refers to the one in claim 1, if so, then it should be “the human voice test. Correction is required.
Claim 22 discloses (for example, wherein the signal indicative of completion of the call comprises a DTMF tone or a line-busy signal), it is not clear if the limitation is included in the claim or not. Claim22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claim 12 teaches “a communication apparatus”, claim 12 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 discloses “a communication apparatus”, it is not clear and vague if claim 12 refers to same “communication device” or another device.
Claim 16 teaches “a communication apparatus”, claim 12 depends on claim 1 and claim 1 discloses “a communication apparatus”, it is not clear and vague if claim 16 refers to same “communication device” or another device.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: voice extender module in claim 10.
In specification, [0168] For purposes of example only, the system 100 of FIG. 1 depicts three voice-extender modules 150, 155, 160 communicably coupled to the control hub 105. Each voice-extender modules 150, 155, 160 comprises respective DSP circuitry 165, 170, 175.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Claim 24 is directed to “a computer program product comprising instructions”.
From applicant’s specification, a computer-readable medium is open to transitory mediums and thus is non-statutory subject matter. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer/processor readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. A claim drawn to such a computer/processor readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. Appropriate corrective action is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotfallah (US 20200162879) in view of Shuman (US 20140219272) in view Halachmi (US 20110150204).
Regarding claim 1, Lotfallah teaches, an emergency call capable system (Fig. 1, el. 100 and Paragraph 44: the system 100 may support a mobile communication device 102 performing emergency calls. The system 100 may enable emergency calls from the mobile communication device 102 to be established with a public-safety answering point (PSAP) 115 connected to an emergency services Internet Protocol (IP) network (ESInet) 114 using IP based signaling and/or to an emergency services network (ESN) 118 using CS based signaling) comprising: a processing means (Fig. 2, el. 206 and Paragraph 55) configured to:
instruct a communications apparatus to initiate a call to a remote system in response to a trigger event (Fig. 4A and Paragraph 67: the UE receives an emergency indication. The emergency indication may correspond to the dialing of an emergency number (e.g. “911” or “112”) by a user of the UE, some other indication of an emergency call or an automatic detection of an emergency condition (e.g., a medical condition for a user of the UE or a fire in a building). In response to receiving the emergency indication, the UE determines to establish an emergency call and determines to use the PS domain for a first attempt to establish the emergency call (e.g., because the UE is already attached to or registered with PS RAN 1 and PS CN 1);
determine whether the call satisfies a condition (Fig. 4B: shows the call attempt fail or success based on certain condition and Paragraph 72: if the first attempt to establish the emergency call fails, the UE may determine a failure at any of stages 2, 3, 4 or 5. For a failure at stage 2, the UE may receive a failure indication and/or failure cause indicating or implying a failure to establish a signaling connection at the AS level and may then skip stages 3-5. For a failure at stage 3, the UE may receive a failure indication and/or failure cause indicating or implying a failure to perform a registration or attachment or to establish an emergency PDN connection or emergency PDU session at the NAS level and may then skip stages 4-5. For a failure at stage 4, the UE may receive a failure indication and/or failure cause indicating or implying a failure to perform an IMS emergency registration at the IMS level and may then skip stage 5. For a failure at stage 5, the UE may receive a failure indication and/or failure cause indicating or implying a failure to establish an emergency call with a PSAP at the IMS, ESN, ESInet or PSAP level. In some cases, a failure indication and/or failure cause may be received by the UE after stage 2 and associated with the AS level or after stage 3 and associated with the NAS level and Paragraph 80: the mobile device may receive the indication that the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT for the first wireless network has failed. In some embodiments, the indication that the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT for the first wireless network has failed may include a cause of failure. As examples, the cause of failure may indicate a failure for an AS (or AS level) or a failure for a NAS (or NAS level). Additionally, the mobile device may receive one or more other indications, such as a second indication that a CS domain is not available or any other type indication) comprising at least one of:
(a) the call passes a call duration test (Paragraph 37 and 87: the processor may determine whether the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT failed. For example, the processor may determine whether an error indication was returned by the network, whether an attempt timer expired);
Determining if the call fail or succeed and instruct the communications apparatus to initiate a further call to the remote system in response to failing to satisfy the condition (Paragraph 87, 89: determine that the call connection is failed and initiate further call to the remote system: in response to determining that the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT failed (i.e., determination block 404=“Yes”), the processor may attempt to establish an emergency call in a PS domain using a second RAT in block 406. For example, the processor may be configured to default to a second RAT different than the first RAT based on a user setting, network setting, or other predetermined configuration).
Lotfallah does not explicitly teach at least one of: the condition further comprises a sub-condition that the call is determined to have been connected for at least a minimum period of time; and
(b) that data transferred from the remote system after initiating the call passes a human voice test, wherein the data passing the human voice test requires that at least some of the data defines a human voice.
Shuman in the same art of endeavor teaches determine call satisfies condition, that data transferred from the remote system after initiating the call passes a voice test, wherein the data passing the voice test requires that at least some of the data defines a voice (Paragraph 57: a call failure reason that provides information to the mobile device regarding why the attempted VoLTE call failed. For example, the target mobile device may be out of VoLTE service range (i.e., out of range of eNodeBs), out of all network reception ranges (e.g., in subway/metro), turned off, not answered by a user or voicemail system, etc. In response, the mobile device may take an action to re-attempt a voice call with the target mobile device, with the type of call attempt based on the received reason for the initial call failure, {so if the call is connected to voice mail “it is passing the test and voice mail reads on human voice”, if the call was not answered by a voice call, means call fail and no human voice is detected}).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Lotfallah with Shuman in order to improve the system and allow more predictable results.
Shuman Lotfallah with Shuman does not explicitly teach the voice is human voice as claimed.
Halachmi also teach the above; Paragraph 47: Preferably only upon detection of a human voice response or an answering service response is the call condition determined as answered.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Lotfallah with Shuman with Halachmi in order to improve the system and allow reliable results.
Regarding claim 2, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, wherein the condition comprises that data transferred from the remote system after initiating the call passes a human voice test (Shuman Paragraph 71: successfully establish a connection with PSAP, Halachmi: Paragraph 10-11: monitors the condition of the call as the called party is contacted, and classifies the condition of the call as one of awaiting a response, answered and failed. Preferably only upon detection of a human voice response or an answering service response is the call condition determined as answered and Paragraph 38: Preferably only upon detection of a human voice response or an answering service response is the call condition determined as answered).
Regarding claim 3, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, wherein the data passing the human voice test requires that at least one of: the data corresponds to a human voice for at least a minimum amount of the data; and/or the data corresponds to a human voice for data corresponding to a minimum amount of time (Halachmi: Paragraph 62, 77, 10: upon detection of a human voice response).
Regarding claim 6, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches wherein the remote system is a monitoring station configured to monitor a plurality of emergency call capable systems (Shuman: Fig. 1, el. 102).
Regarding claim 7, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, wherein the call and the further call is over a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) (Shuman Paragraph 34), wherein the communications apparatus comprises a PSTN modem (Lotfallah: Paragraph 41).
Regarding claim 8, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, wherein the occurrence of a trigger event is determined based on a signal received from at least one device selected from a group consisting of: a motion sensor; a camera; a health and/or care monitoring device; a fall detector; and/or a distress device (Lotfallah Paragraph 86: a medical condition for a user of the mobile communication device) by a sensor of the mobile communication device).
Regarding claim 9, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, a control hub configured to wirelessly communicate with one or more devices, the one or more devices comprising said at least one device (Lotfallah: Fig. 1, el. 112).
Regarding claim 17, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, wherein said call and said further call are to the same phone number (Lotfallah Fig. 4, Paragraph 67).
Regarding claim 18, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, wherein said call and said further call are to different respective phone numbers (Lotfallah Fig. 4, Paragraph 87: store a database of emergency numbers in memory).
Regarding claim 19, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, wherein the condition comprises that the call passes the call duration test (Paragraph 37 and 87: the processor may determine whether the attempt to establish the emergency call in a PS domain using the first RAT failed. For example, the processor may determine whether an error indication was returned by the network, whether an attempt timer expired).
Regarding claim 20, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, wherein the processing means is configured to determine the whether the call has a duration lasting at least as long as a predefined minimum and in an event that the duration is determine to last at least as long as the predefined minimum, determine that the call duration test is passed (Lotfallah Paragraph 37 and 87).
Regarding claim 21, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, wherein the call is commenced upon completion of transmitting, to a network, instructions to connect the emergency call capable system to a phone number associated with the remote system (Shuman: Paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 22, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, wherein the processing means is further configured to determine that, upon receiving a signal indicative of completion of the call, the call has been ended; for example, wherein the signal indicative of completion of the call comprises a DTMF tone or a line-busy signal (Shuman: Paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 23, see claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 24, see claim 1 rejection.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotfallah (US 20200162879) in view of Shuman (US 20140219272) in view Halachmi (US 20110150204) in view of Fountaine (US 20180325470).
Regarding claim 5, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, passing the human voice test (determine if the call condition is answered, i.e., a human voice; Halachmi: Paragraph 64).
Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi does not teach, wherein passing the human voice test requires identification of at least one of: a human voice saying at least one predefined keyword; a human voice saying a predefined phrase.
Fountaine teaches identification of at least one of: a human voice saying at least one predefined keyword; a human voice saying a predefined phrase (Paragraph 64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Lotfallah with Shuman in view Halachmi with Fountaine in order to improve the system and allow recognizing the needed help.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotfallah (US 20200162879) in view of Shuman (US 20140219272) in view Halachmi (US 20110150204) in view of D’Evelyn (US 20050282518).
Regarding claim 11, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches, the claimed system.
Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi does not explicitly wherein the system comprises a Personal Emergency Response System (PERS) device.
D’Evelyn in the same art of endeavor teach an emergency system, place and emergency call, connect to PSAP wherein the system comprises a Personal Emergency Response System (PERS) device (Paragraph 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Lotfallah with Shuman in view Halachmi with D’Evelyn in order to improve the system and provide quick access to emergency help, increased independence.
Claims 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotfallah (US 20200162879) in view of Shuman (US 20140219272) in view Halachmi (US 20110150204) in view of Hatton (US 20140206308).
Regarding claim 12, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches the claimed trigger event.
Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi does not teach wherein in response to the trigger event the processing means is further configured to instruct a communications apparatus to transmit a notification of the trigger event to an application server associated with the remote system, wherein initiating the call to a remote system comprises transmitting, to a network, instructions to connect the emergency call capable system to a phone number associated with the remote system.
Hatton in the same art of endeavor teaches in response to the trigger event the processing means is further configured to instruct a communications apparatus to transmit a notification of the trigger event to an application server associated with the remote system (Fig. 2, el. 203), wherein initiating the call to a remote system comprises transmitting, to a network, instructions to connect the emergency call capable system to a phone number associated with the remote system (Fig. 5 and Paragraph 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Lotfallah with Shuman in view Halachmi with Hatton in order to improve the system and provide response to emergency in timely manner.
Regarding claim 13, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi in view of Hatton teaches, wherein transmitting the notification of the trigger event comprises initiating a first call to the remote system by transmitting signals over a phone line established by the first call (Hatton: Paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 14, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi in view of Hatton teaches, wherein said call is said first call (Lotfallah: Fig. 4, el. 404).
Regarding claim 15, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi in view of Hatton teaches, wherein said first call precedes said call, and initiating said call is in response to the emergency call capable system receiving signals from the remote system indicating acceptance, by the remote system, of the notification (Lotfallah: Paragraph 90-92).
Regarding claim 16, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches the claimed trigger event.
Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi does not teach wherein in response to the trigger event the processing means is further configured to instruct a communications apparatus to transmit a notification of the trigger event to an application server (Fig. 2, el. 203) associated with the remote system, wherein initiating the call to a remote system comprises transmitting, to a network, instructions to connect the emergency call capable system to a phone number associated with the remote system, wherein the notification comprises a network address of the application server.
Hatton in the same art of endeavor teaches in response to the trigger event the processing means is further configured to instruct a communications apparatus to transmit a notification of the trigger event to an application server associated with the remote system, wherein initiating the call to a remote system comprises transmitting, to a network, instructions to connect the emergency call capable system to a phone number associated with the remote system, wherein the notification comprises a network address of the application server (Fig. 5 and Paragraph 53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Lotfallah with Shuman in view Halachmi with Hatton in order to improve the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA EL-ZOOBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Carolyn Edward can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/MARIA EL-ZOOBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692