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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/202 regarding 101 and 112(b) rejection and objection to drawing has been considered, Applicant amended the claims to overcome the rejections therefore, 112(b) and 101 rejections withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/15/2026 regarding 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that combination of references does not teach {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; and instruct the communications apparatus to initiate a further call to the remote system in response to failing to satisfy the condition}.
In response, Applicant claiming “human voice test” which indicate that the data could be relating to human voice or not “answer machine, ringing tone, etc. so the data passing the human voice test requires that at least some of the data defines a human voice “so if the data does not define human voice, it passes the test if there is no “human voice”, maybe ringing, tones, no answer “means no human voice” it will fail.
Shuman in Paragraph 57: teaches call nor answer by user or machine “so that data reads on ringing tunes while no one is answering” then call is failed, if user answer, call is connected.
Lotfallah disclosed “if call fail then re-try” but did not specify the failing reason).
For further clarification, Examiner added Halchim which teaches explicitly the call considered answered “success” only if human voice is detected {Paragraph 47: 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)
Therefore, combination of references teach the claimed invention and Examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant in his specification mentioned that “human voice” could be “pre-defined words”, which is not consistent with the meaning of human voice, if applicant wants to refer to this meaning, an amendment should be done to reflect this.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following: claim 9 depending on claim 25, claim should only depend on preceding claim . Appropriate correction 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, 9, 17-18, 20-24 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 the condition further comprises
(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 (also see response to argument).
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 9, Lotfallah in view of Shuman in view of Halachmi teaches,
The emergency call capable system of The emergency call capable system of wherein occurrence of the 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), 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 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 (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 12-13, 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), 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: Paragraph90-92).
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.
Claims 25-26, 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotfallah (US 20200162879) in view of Herman (US 20160309310).
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:
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);
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 wherein the condition further comprises a sub-condition that the call is determined to have been connected for at least a predefined minimum period of time.
Herman teaches the call is determined to have been connected for at least a predefined minimum period of time (Paragraph 33: Call data includes a call status. A status of a call includes whether a call is pending, connected, failed, or so forth. Call data includes a call timer, identifiers for parties connected to the call, and a time that a call was commenced).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Lotfallah with Herman in order to improve the system and enhance the system capability to provide better service.
Regarding claim 26, Lotfallah in view of Herman teaches, wherein the call is determined to have been connected based on the emergency call capable system receiving of a call-opened signal (Herman: abstract).
Regarding claim 28, Lotfallah in view of Herman teaches, wherein the call and the further call is a VOIP call (Herman: Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 29, see claim 25 rejections.
Regarding claim 30, see claim 25 rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10, 27 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
Prosecution Insights