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 Arguments
Following response to arguments is based on Applicant’s arguments filed on 03 September 2026.
Regarding Previous Rejection Under 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 8-16] with respect to rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8-11, 14 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, on pages 8-12, Applicant argues that prior art of record fails to teach “verifying, at the public-safety answering point, authenticity of the emergency caller; and enabling, at the public-safety answering point, the emergency caller to selectively access information indicating a current status of the one or more of the incident-response resources as a function of verifying the authenticity of the emergency caller”.
The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s explanation of the instant claims but respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s response and submits as follows.
The actual recitation of the limitations differ from the arguments, as these limitations do not provide further details or procedure of how, for example, verification of authenticity of the emergency caller is performed. A person having ordinary skills in the art could interpret these limitations as a regular interaction between a caller and dispatcher at moment of calling the emergency line, because term “verifying authenticity” is relative and any interaction between a caller and a dispatcher is considered an authentication, otherwise dispatchers would not send any responder when an emergency call is received.
Furthermore, it would be recognized that systems [even before the effective filing date] verify/authenticate some information before responders are dispatched to the emergency location. Hence, Suzuki’s disclosure, by at least implementing RapidSOS Clearinghouse systems, is actually verifying and authenticating caller’s info or credentials [Paragraphs 40-41, 45-46, 50-51], as well as granting access to the caller to access system information [Paragraphs 71, 127, 132, 146, 224].
Also, in combination with Suzuki, secondary reference Gratton specifies that the caller is granted option to track current status of responders until arriving to the emergency location [Gratton: Paragraphs 81-83, 446, 456, 527, 843, 879, 904].
It is worth noting that these two references disclose security systems, then being combinable in the context of instant application.
Regarding claim 14, this claim comprises similar limitations to those set forth in independent claim 1 and is rejected based on similar reasoning.
Regarding claim 4, on pages 12-13, Applicant argues that Suzuki fails to teach “verifying… retrieving an identity… caller name…”.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Suzuki teaches the disclosure of several identifiers/characteristics, including names, numbers, etc. [Paragraph 46].
Applicant’s arguments [Pages 14-15] with respect to rejection of claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims 8-11, on pages 15-16, Applicant argues that prior art fails to teach these limitations.
The Examiner respectfully submits that these claims, based on the above, are disclosed by Suzuki and Gratton [Gratton – Paragraphs 93, 102, 111-112, 849], [Suzuki – Paragraphs 69, 80, 107, 210].
Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Status
Claims 3, 14, 16, 19 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Thus, claims 1-21 are presented for examination.
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 of this title, 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 1-5 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0089716) in view of Gratton et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0081559).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a method for enabling an emergency caller to selectively access information about incident-response resources (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
receiving, at a public-safety answering point, an emergency communication from a caller device associated with the emergency caller (PSAP 140 receives emergency communication [Paragraphs 15-16, 37, 71, 119-120, 127, 139]);
obtaining, at the public-safety answering point, incident information relating to occurrence of an incident from the emergency communication (PSAP obtains info about the emergency [Paragraphs 15-16, 37, 71, 119-120, 127, 139]);
assigning, at the public-safety answering point, based on the incident information, one or more incident-response resources for responding to the incident (based on the obtained info, the PSAP assigns resources [Paragraphs 15-16, 37, 71, 119-120, 127, 139]);
verifying, at the public-safety answering point, authenticity of the emergency caller (authentication of the caller is verified [Paragraphs 65, 71, 127, 132, 146, 224]); and
enabling, at the public-safety answering point, the emergency caller to selectively access information (the caller is granted with the assistance services to[Paragraphs 65, 71, 127, 132, 146, 224]. Additionally, the actual recitation of the limitations differ from the arguments, as these limitations do not provide further details or procedure of how, for example, verification of authenticity of the emergency caller is performed. A person having ordinary skills in the art could interpret these limitations as a regular interaction between a caller and dispatcher at moment of calling the emergency line, because term “verifying authenticity” is relative and any interaction between a caller and a dispatcher is considered an authentication, otherwise dispatchers would not send any responder when an emergency call is received. Furthermore, it would be recognized that systems [even before the effective filing date] verify/authenticate some information before responders are dispatched to the emergency location. Hence, Suzuki’s disclosure, by at least implementing RapidSOS Clearinghouse systems, is actually verifying and authenticating caller’s info or credentials [Paragraphs 40-41, 45-46, 50-51], as well as granting access to the caller to access system information [Paragraphs 71, 127, 132, 146, 224]) [.
However, Suzuki does not explicitly mention: indicating a current status of the one or more of the incident-response resources as a function of verifying the authenticity of the emergency caller.
Gratton teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of emergency systems, the following:
indicating a current status of the one or more of the incident-response resources as a function of verifying the authenticity of the emergency caller (for the disclosed system, status of the service provided for assisting on emergencies is indicated on authorized users [Paragraphs 81-83, 446, 456, 527, 843, 879, 904]. Additionally, in combination with Suzuki, secondary reference Gratton specifies that the caller is granted option to track current status of responders until arriving to the emergency location [Gratton: Paragraphs 81-83, 446, 456, 527, 843, 879, 904]. It is worth noting that these two references disclose security systems, then being combinable in the context of instant application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the emergency system (as taught by Suzuki) by generating status of the assistance (as taught by Gratton) for the purpose of efficiently responding to emergencies (Gratton – Paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 2, Gratton further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the incident information includes one or more of: a type of the incident and a location of the incident (type and location of the accidents are provided to the PSAP [Paragraphs 81-83, 446, 456, 527, 843, 879, 904]).
Regarding claim 3, Gratton further teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the one or more incident-response resources is a public-safety responder dispatched to the location of the incident, wherein information indicating the current status of the incident-response resource include one or more of: an estimated time of arrival of the public-safety responder at the location of the incident; a unique identifier assigned to the public-safety responder; an image or video capturing an en route status of the public-safety responder; and a priority with which the public-safety responder is responding to the incident (different types of statuses are provided, including location, id, multimedia, priority [Paragraphs 106, 340, 837]).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki in view of Gratton further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein verifying the authenticity of the emergency caller comprises: retrieving an identity of the caller from the emergency communication, the identity of the emergency caller including one or more of a caller name, caller number, or caller characteristic data (Suzuki: [Paragraphs 45-46]); and assigning an authenticity score as a function of whether the identity of the caller is associated with an existing caller profile classified as a potential security threat to public safety (Gratton: [Paragraph 198]).
Regarding claim 5, Gratton further teaches the method of claim 4, wherein enabling comprises: determining whether the authenticity score is greater than a first predetermined threshold ([Paragraph 220]); and enabling the emergency caller to selectively access information indicating the current status of the one or more incident-response resources only when the authenticity score is greater than the first predetermined threshold (based on score of threat in view of threshold, the user is granted with status of the assistance [Paragraph 224]).
Regarding claim 8, Gratton further teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising: determining a caller context from the emergency communication ([Paragraphs 93, 102]); and adjusting the authenticity score as a function of the caller context ([Paragraphs 111-112]).
Regarding claim 9, Gratton further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein adjusting comprises: determining that the caller context indicates that the emergency caller is under duress; and decreasing the authenticity score in response to determining that the emergency caller is under duress (based on duress of the user, the score is altered [Paragraph 849]).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein enabling comprises: providing a resource link with an access token to the emergency caller to allow the emergency caller to access information indicating the current status of the incident-response resources via the caller device ([Paragraphs 69, 80, 107, 210]).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki further teaches the method of claim 10, further comprising: enabling the emergency caller to upload additional information about the incident using the resource link (as in Fig. 1, user provides info about the emergencies via the devices in the network).
Regarding claim 12, Gratton further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: providing, at the public-safety answering point, a call-taker graphical user interface identifying one or more of: information about the incident-response resources assigned to the incident, information resulting from the verification of the emergency caller, and information used to perform verification of the emergency caller (Figs. 15, 18, 19A, 20A, 20E, 25).
Regarding claim 13, Gratton further teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: prior to enabling the emergency caller to selectively access information indicating the current status of the one or more incident-response resources, receiving, at the call-taker graphical user interface, an input indicating an authorization from a call taker to share information about incident-response resources with the emergency caller (as in Figs. 15, 18, 19A, 20A, 20E, 25, the user inputs the custom settings about the incident).
Regarding claims 14-20, these claims are rejected as applied to claims 1-5, 8-9.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0089716) in view of Gratton et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0081559) and further in view of Martin et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0174289).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Suzuki and Gratton teaches all the limitations recited in claim 4.
However, the combination of Suzuki and Gratton does not explicitly mention: wherein verifying the authenticity of the emergency caller further comprises: issuing a challenge to the emergency caller based on information included in an existing caller profile accessible by the public-safety answering point; and confirming the identity of the emergency caller based on a response to the challenge received from the emergency caller.
Martin teaches, in a similar field of endeavor of emergency systems, the following:
wherein verifying the authenticity of the emergency caller further comprises: issuing a challenge to the emergency caller based on information included in an existing caller profile accessible by the public-safety answering point; and confirming the identity of the emergency caller based on a response to the challenge received from the emergency caller (upon verification of response to challenge, the response is given [Paragraphs 8, 11, 13, 88, 112, 151, 209]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the emergency system (as taught by Suzuki) by generating status of the assistance (as taught by Gratton) by challenging the caller (as taught by Martin) for the purpose of efficiently responding to emergencies (Martin – Paragraph 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5708. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 5712723044. 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.
September 29, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
