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
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant's arguments, filed on 2/23/2026 with respect to the pending claims in the remarks, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the new limitations added to claims 1, 8 and 15. See the rejection below of claims 1, 8 and 15 for relevant citations found in English and Fish disclosing the newly added limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 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 Fish et al., (US 9,462,444), (hereinafter, Fish).
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).
English explicitly fails to disclose the claimed limitations of:
“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; determine a geolocation of the user equipment; and
in response to detecting that the connection has been established between the user equipment and the PSAP, transmit the geolocation of the user equipment to the PSAP.”
However, Fish, which is an analogous art equivalently discloses the claimed limitation of:
“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 (= wearable device 12a receives a command via the network from system 14 to contact a PSAP based on the location of user 16a, see col. 8, lines 61-66; and device 12a contacts the selected PSAP 19 over the network, see col. 9, lines 20-22);
determine a geolocation of the user equipment (= device 12a obtains datasets, where one of the datasets is position/location, see col. 5, line 63-col. 6, line 9);
establishing a direct data connection with a computer associated with an emergency services dispatcher at the PSAP (= see col. 9, lines 20-67) 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.”(= device 12a transmits the location of user 16a to the PSAP 19, see col. 9, lines 24-67).
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 Fish with English for the benefit of achieving an emergency communication system that permits a wearable device worn by a user to automatically contact and transmit user state information to a PSAP.
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, Fish, 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 (= device 12a obtains datasets, where one of the datasets is position/location, see col. 5, line 63-col. 6, line 9; device 12a transmits the location of user 16a to the PSAP 19, see col. 9, lines 24-25).
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 Fish with English for the benefit of achieving an emergency communication system that permits a wearable device worn by a user to automatically contact and transmit user state information to a PSAP.
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, Fish, 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 (= cellular module 46 is configured to communicate with and receive position data from an aGPS receiver 52 see col. 5, lines 26-33).
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 Fish with English for the benefit of achieving an emergency communication system that permits a wearable device worn by a user to automatically contact and transmit user state information to a PSAP.
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).
4. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over English and Fish in view of Michaelis et al., (US 8,965,326), (hereinafter, Michaelis).
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, Michaelis, 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, col. 5, lines 17-29).
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 Michaelis with English and Fish for the benefit of achieving an emergency communication system that includes dynamically updating of location information for a moving target during 9-1-1 call.
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of 33the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
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-Sat (6am – 10pm).
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.