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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments, filed on 06/4/2026 with respect to claims 1-20 in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over English et al., (US 8,542,611), (hereinafter, English) in view of Ryan et al., (US 2017/0094490), (hereinafter, Ryan).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, English discloses a user equipment/method/ non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising:
a radio transceiver; and a processor communicatively coupled to the radio transceiver (= VoIP client 102 is capable of communicating with other VoIP clients over network 104, see col. 2, lines 30-31) and configured to:
receive a command to place a wireless voice call to an emergency service
(= VoIP client 102 initiated an emergency call, see col, 2, lines 54-57);
in response to receiving the command, initiate the wireless voice call to the emergency service at an emergency phone number using the radio transceiver
(= a user of client 102 may indicate that client 102 should initiate the emergency call by dialing an emergency phone number such as 911, see col. 2, line 65-col. 3, line 3);
detect that a connection has been established between the user equipment and a Public-Safety Answering Point (PSAP), wherein the PSAP is responsible for dispatching emergency services (= emergency call is routed between client 102 and PSAP 105, see col. 6, lines 7-19);
determine a geolocation of the user equipment (= received GPS coordinates indicate device 101 is located, see col. 6, lines 7-13).
English explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“establish a direct data connection separate from the wireless voice call with a computer associated with an emergency services dispatcher at the PSAP; and
in response to detecting that the connection has been established between the user equipment and the PSAP, transmit, over the direct data connection, the geolocation of the user equipment to the computer associated with the emergency services dispatcher at the PSAP.”
However, Ryan, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitation of:
establish a direct data connection separate from the wireless voice call with a computer associated with an emergency services dispatcher at the PSAP (= UE 108 may be communication with emergency mediation server 120 and the server may communicate with the UE as well as an emergency dispatch center 122, see [0043]; and data connection between the UE and server 120 may be used to transfer information about the subscriber including their location data and video/audio stream to/from the dispatch center 122, see [0045]); and
in response to detecting that the connection has been established between the user equipment and the PSAP, transmit, over the direct data connection, the geolocation of the user equipment to the computer associated with the emergency services dispatcher at the PSAP (= a data connection between dispatch center and server 120 provides UE data (such as location data and audio/video data) to the dispatch center, see [0046]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Ryan with English for the benefit of achieving an emergency communication system that includes data privacy and record keeping of access to private user data to ensure security of stored user data and to prevent misuse of collected user data.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, as mentioned in claims 1, 8 and 15 the combination of English and Fish explicitly fails to disclose further disclose the user equipment/method/ non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the processor is further configured to: after transmitting the geolocation of the user equipment to the PSAP, periodically update the geolocation to reflect a more recent geolocation of the user equipment; and transmit an updated geolocation to the PSAP after performing each update.
However, Ryan, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the user equipment/method/ non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the processor is further configured to: after transmitting the geolocation of the user equipment to the PSAP, periodically update the geolocation to reflect a more recent geolocation of the user equipment; and transmit an updated geolocation to the PSAP after performing each update (see, [0036 and 0132-33]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Ryan with English for the benefit of achieving an emergency communication system that includes data privacy and record keeping of access to private user data to ensure security of stored user data and to prevent misuse of collected user data.
Regarding claims 3,10 and 17 as mentioned in claims 1, 8 and 15, English explicitly fails to disclose the user equipment/method non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the geolocation of the user equipment in response to detecting that the connection has been established between the user equipment and the PSAP.
However, Ryan, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the user equipment/method/ non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the processor is further configured to determine the geolocation of the user equipment in response to detecting that the connection has been established between the user equipment and the PSAP (see, [0044-0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Ryan with English for the benefit of achieving an emergency communication system that includes data privacy and record keeping of access to private user data to ensure security of stored user data and to prevent misuse of collected user data.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18 as mentioned in claims 1, 8 and 15, English explicitly fails to disclose the user equipment/method/ non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to determine the geolocation of the user equipment by performing radio location with one or more radio towers.
However, Ryan, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the user equipment/method/ non-transitory computer-readable medium, wherein the processor is configured to determine the geolocation of the user equipment by performing radio location with one or more radio towers (see, [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Ryan with English for the benefit of achieving an emergency communication system that includes data privacy and record keeping of access to private user data to ensure security of stored user data and to prevent misuse of collected user data.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19 as mentioned in claims 1, 8 and 15, English further disclose that the user equipment/method/, non-transitory computer-readable medium, further comprising: a Wi-Fi transceiver configured to exchange data with one or more Wi-Fi access points; and wherein the processor is further configured to determine the geolocation of the user equipment by performing Wi-Fi positioning using the one or more Wi-Fi access points (see, col. 3, lines 36-43 and col. 4, lines 41-58).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, as mentioned in claims 1, 8 and 15, English further disclose that the user equipment/method/ non-transitory computer-readable medium, further comprising: a Global Positioning System (GPS) device configured to determine GPS coordinates; and wherein the processor is further configured to determine the geolocation of the user equipment by determining the GPS coordinates of the user equipment using the GPS device (see, col. 3, lines 36-43 and col. 4, lines 41-58).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, as mentioned in claims 1 and 8, English further discloses the user equipment/method, wherein the emergency service comprises the 9-1-1 emergency service (see, col. 2, lines 36-37).
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kwasi Karikari whose telephone number is
571-272-8566.The examiner can normally be reached on M-Fri (8am – 4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Charles Appiah can be reached on 571-272-7904.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8566.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Kwasi Karikari/
Primary Examiner: Art Unit 2641.
Prosecution Insights