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 .
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 1-20 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]) [.
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]).
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 6, Gratton further teaches the method of claim 5, wherein the current status of the one or more incident-response resources includes a first status of the one or more incident-response resources and a second status of the one or more incident-response resources (different types of statuses are provided based on scores [Paragraphs 220, 224]), the method further comprising:
determining whether the authenticity score is greater than a second predetermined threshold, the second predetermined threshold being greater than the first predetermined threshold (upon a score determination, it is determined whether which threshold is greater [Paragraphs 220, 224]);
enabling the emergency caller to access information indicating the first status but not the second status when the authenticity score is greater than the first predetermined threshold but not the second predetermined threshold (based on the thresholds, an access is granted [Paragraphs 220, 224]); and
enabling the emergency caller to access information indicating both the first status and the second status when the authenticity score is greater than the second predetermined threshold (based on the thresholds, an access is granted [Paragraphs 220, 224]).
Regarding claim 7, Gratton further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the first status includes an estimated time of arrival of a public-safety responder at a location of the incident or a priority with which the public-safety responder is responding to the incident ([Paragraph 83, 86, 88]); and wherein the second status includes a unique identifier assigned to the public-safety responder or an image or a video capturing an en route status of the public-safety responder ([Paragraphs 97, 129, 342]).
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.
Conclusion
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.
June 13, 2026
/FABRICIO R MURILLO GARCIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights