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 Amendment
This Action is in response to communications filed on 06/09/2026.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9, and 15 have been amended. There are no new or cancelled claims.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 9 and 15 are independent.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Specification
The amendment to abstract and/or specification was received on 06/09/2026. These amendments are acceptable, and as a result, the respective specification objections made in the non-final Office Action have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Double Patenting Rejections
The Applicant's amendment/ arguments, see page 9-10 of REMARKS, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to Double Patenting Rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed on 06/09/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“Independent Claims 1, 9, and 15, as amended, now recite selecting a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification and executing the selected script, wherein each script of the plurality of scripts corresponds to a different classification. Applicant submits that the amended claims are patentably distinct from the claims of co-pending Application No. 18/601,683. None of the claims of co-pending Application No. 18/601,683 recite selecting a script from a plurality of scripts wherein each script corresponds to a different classification. Co- pending Application No. 18/601,683 recites executing 'a script' that is 'at least partially based on the determined classification,' but does not recite the selection of a specific script from among a plurality of classification-specific scripts. The present claims require a one-to-one correspondence between scripts and classifications, such that a different script is selected and executed depending on the classification. This is a patentably distinct feature. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the non-statutory double patenting rejections of Claims 1-20.” (See page 9-10 of REMARKS, filed 06/09/2026).
In response to the applicant’s arguments, it is noted that the independent claims of co-pending Application No. 18/601,683 recites the limitation “using a computer model to execute a script and communicate one or more questions from the script to a user associated with the initial communication to the PSAP, wherein the script is at least partially based on the determined classification of the initial communication”.
Although concept of “script selection” is not recited verbatim, a script that gets executed is at least partially based on the determined classification of the initial communication. This suggests that there can be multiple other scripts as well that would have been executed instead if the determined classification of the initial communication was different. Therefore, this concept is obvious modification/ variation of the language in the co-pending application. As pointed out on pages 6 and 10 of the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 03/27/2026, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the instant application are obvious variation of the method claims of the co-pending application. For this reason, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. §101 Rejections
The Applicant's amendment/ arguments, see pages 10-12 of REMARKS, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amended claims recite a specific technical process that includes intercepting communications to a PSAP before they reach a human operator, classifying the communications as emergency, non-emergency, or not related to PSAP services, executing classification-specific scripts to communicate questions to a user, and either sending the communication, determined classification, and response to a human operator at the PSAP, or to one of a plurality of communication queues based on both the determined classification.
As argued by the applicant, examiner found that such claimed invention, as a whole, integrates any judicial exception, if present, into a practical application. For instance, in the claimed invention, by using a script as a guide to gather more information about the communication to the PSAP, the system can help gather needed details about the communication and allow an emergency service operator to focus their attention on facilitating an appropriate response to the emergency PSAP communications (see [0032] and [0037]). In addition, by classifying communications to the PSAP as emergency PSAP communications, non-emergency PSAP communications, and not related to PSAP communications, the communication analysis engine can triage the communications and allow an emergency service operator to focus their attention on the emergency PSAP communications (see [0033] and [0040]). For examples, the communication analysis engine may not send or forward the non-emergency PSAP communication to the PSAP (see [0043] and [0072]). This is a specific technical improvement that reduces the burden on PSAP operators and ensures emergency communications are triaged efficiently before they reach a human operator. As a result, the respective claim rejections made under 35 USC § 101 in the final Office Action mailed on 04/30/2026 have been withdrawn.
However, the applicant is strongly encouraged to incorporate a final step clarifying what happens to the initial communication after they are placed into the priority queues at the PSAP.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections
The Applicant's amendment/ arguments, see page 12-13 of REMARKS, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections of claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed on 06/09/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“Martin does not teach or suggest using a computer model to select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification, wherein each script corresponds to a different classification. In Martin, the emergency management system (EMS) initiates an autonomous communication session with a user to gather emergency information, and the EMS may determine an emergency category based on the gathered information. See Martin at [0021], [0073], [0146]. However, Martin's chatbot communicates with the user according to a predetermined script or independently using artificial intelligence to gather emergency data and the script is used to determine the emergency category, not the other way around. Martin does not disclose first determining a classification for the communication and then selecting a specific script from among a plurality of classification-specific scripts based on that determined classification. In the claimed invention, the classification is determined first, and a script is then selected from a plurality of scripts based on that classification, wherein each script corresponds to a different classification. This is a fundamentally different sequence of operations from what Martin discloses.
Moreover, the amended claims now recite "selecting a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification of the communication" and "wherein each script of the plurality of scripts corresponds to a different classification." Martin does not disclose maintaining a plurality of scripts that each correspond to a different classification and selecting among them based on a determined classification. Martin's predetermined script is a single script that may be adapted dynamically, not a selection from among classification-specific scripts.” (See page 12-13 of REMARKS, filed 06/09/2026).
In response to the applicant’s arguments that Martin does not teach or suggest “using a computer model to select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification, wherein each script corresponds to a different classification”, it is first noted that Martin teaches stepping through the decision tree using the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device to determine the emergency category based at least in part on the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device and at least in part on the nature of the emergency (see [0021]). In addition, [0100] discloses that the EMS access a decision tree and steps through the decision tree using emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device to determine the likely emergency. This is similar to the claimed concept of “using a computer model to analyze content of the communication to determining a classification for the communication”.
The disclosed method further comprises determining a nature of the emergency, wherein the decision tree is accessed based on the nature of the emergency (see [0021] and [0025]). More specifically, the EMS accessing the decision tree based on a nature of emergency determined for an emergency (see [0100]). The disclosed method further comprises each response received from the user during the autonomous communication session moving the emergency management system one step forward on the decision tree (see [0021] and [0025]). For e.g., after initiating an autonomous communication session with a user of the electronic device, posing questions to the user through the emergency assistant application, and receiving responses to the questions posed to the user through the emergency assistant application during the autonomous communication session, the EMS then uses each response received from the user during the autonomous communication session to move one step forward on the decision tree (see [0100]). The predetermined script is adapted according to a decision tree (see [0018]). For e.g., each level of the decision tree asks a more detailed and/or specific question than the precious level (see [0100]) The messages 304 are transmitted to the communication device 310 according to a predetermined script, wherein the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithms (see [0073]). For e.g., based on the nature of the emergency, one of the questions posed to the user through the emergency assistant application prompts the user to identify an afflicted body part (see [0021]).
The disclosed concept of determining a nature of the emergency first, then accessing a decision tree based on the nature of the emergency determined, posing questions to the user through the emergency assistant application, receiving responses to the questions, and using each response received from the user during the autonomous communication session to move one step forward on the decision tree while the script (or sequence of messages) is adapted (“selected”) to ask more detailed and/or specific question than the precious level is similar to the claimed concept of “using the computer model to select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification of the communication and execute the selected script to communicate one or more questions from the selected script to a user associated with the communication to the PSAP”.
Therefore, the examiner disagrees that Martin teaches that the script is used to determine the emergency category, as alleged by the applicant. Examiner reemphasized that the cited reference to Martin sufficiently discloses determining a nature of the emergency first (based at least in part on the emergency information received from the electronic device), and then the decision tree is accessed based on the nature of the emergency (see [0021] and [0025]).
Applicant further argues that Martin does not disclose maintaining a plurality of scripts that each correspond to a different classification and selecting among them based on a determined classification. However, this argument is non-persuasive because, as set forth above, using each response received from the user during the autonomous communication session, the disclosed method in Martin moves one step forward on the decision tree while the script (or sequence of messages) is adapted (“selected”) to ask more detailed and/or specific question than the precious level. For e.g., in one scenario, based on the nature of the emergency, one of the questions posed to the user through the emergency assistant application prompts the user to identify an afflicted body part (see [0021]). The script that will be executed for this emergency situation is different from non-emergency situation (e.g., car breaking down) where the user merely needs to request for a tow truck, and the emergency assistant application does not prompt the user to identify an afflicted body part when requesting for a tow truck after car breaks down (see [0135]-[ 0136]). Therefore, examiner also disagrees with the applicant’s arguments that Martin does not disclose maintaining a plurality of scripts that each correspond to a different classification and selecting among them based on a determined classification.
“Furthermore, Martin does not disclose sending the communication, the determined classification, and the at least one response to the one or more questions together to a human operator at the PSAP. Martin's EMS transmits emergency information to an ESP, but does not disclose the specific combination of sending the original communication, a three-way classification (emergency, non-emergency, or not related to PSAP services), and responses to classification-based scripted questions as a package to a human operator.” (See page 13 of REMARKS, filed 06/09/2026).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “sending the original communication, a three-way classification (emergency, non-emergency, or not related to PSAP services), and responses to classification-based scripted questions as a package to a human operator”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to the applicant’s argument that Martin doesn’t disclose “sending the communication, and the determined classification to a human operator at the PSAP”, the Applicant’s remarks do not provide any specific reasons as to why either the findings of fact or the legal conclusion that the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC § 102 is allegedly in error. Paragraph [0178] and [0183] were cited as teaching that the EMS delivers description of emergency (“communication”) with the local PSAP. Paragraph [0179] was cited as teaching that the EMS shares the location and nature of Darius' emergency (“determined classification”) with the local PSAP. Paragraphs [0084]-[0085] in view of Fig.7B:760 were also cited. Applicant’s remarks are only generalizations not tied to the facts of the cases that amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how.
In response to the applicant’s argument that Martin doesn’t disclose “sending the at least one response to the one or more questions to a human operator at the PSAP”, it is noted that the EMS transmits emergency information extracted from an autonomous communication session in real-time. For example, in some embodiments, the EMS transmits answers from a user to questions posed through an autonomous communication session to an ESP as the answers are being received (see [0085]).
For these reasons, the applicant’s arguments are non-persuasive.
Applicant's arguments for the dependent claims 2-8 (See page 13 of REMARKS, filed 06/09/2026) appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the cited reference fails to disclose all the limitations of respective independent claim 1. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the dependent claims persist.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C. §103 Rejections
The Applicant's amendment/ arguments, see page 13-15 of REMARKS, filed 06/09/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 Rejections of claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed on 06/09/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“It is respectfully submitted that the rejected claims are patentable over the art of record based on at least the third criterion of obviousness: none of the references alone or in combination teach, suggest, or disclose each claim limitation of the Independent Claims. Independent Claim 9, as amended, now recites, inter alia, "using a computer model to analyze content of communications destined to a public safety answering point (PSAP) to determine a classification for communications, wherein the classification is one of an emergency PSAP classification, a non-emergency PSAP classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification; using the computer model to select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification of each communication and execute the selected script to communicate one or more questions from the selected script to a user associated with each communication, wherein each script of the plurality of scripts corresponds to a different classification; receiving at least one response to the one or more questions." Independent Claim 15 recites analogous limitations in system form.
As discussed above with respect to the §102 rejection, Martin does not disclose using a computer model to select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification, where each script corresponds to a different classification. Martin's chatbot uses a predetermined script to gather information that is then used to determine an emergency category and the script drives the classification, not the reverse. The claimed invention requires the opposite where the classification is determined first, and a script is then selected from a plurality of classification-specific scripts and executed based on that classification.
Reddy discloses a system for prioritizing emergency calls in a call queue at a PSAP based on transcripts of audio emergency description messages. See Reddy at [0013], [0035]. Reddy's system records audio messages from callers while their calls are on hold, transcribes the messages, and adjusts priority levels within the call queue based on the transcripts. However, Reddy does not disclose using a computer model to determine a classification for communications and then executing a script based on that classification to communicate questions to a user. Reddy's system is entirely passive with respect to the caller in that it records and transcribes what the caller says, but does not engage in a classification-based scripted interaction with the caller.
Neither Arnold nor Balthasar cure the deficiencies of Martin and Reddy. Arnold discloses identifying types of incidents including prank calls and accidental calls, but does not disclose selecting a script from a plurality of classification-specific scripts. Balthasar discloses translation capabilities for emergency calls, but similarly does not disclose selecting a script from a plurality of classification-specific scripts. The amended claims further require selecting a script from a plurality of scripts wherein each script corresponds to a different classification. Neither Reddy, Arnold, nor Balthasar disclose or suggest this feature. Reddy does not use scripts at all and merely passively records and transcribes caller messages. The combination of references thus fails to teach or suggest all limitations of the amended claims.
No combination of the cited references teaches or suggests the claimed feature of using a computer model to first determine a classification for a communication and then select a script from a plurality of scripts based on that determined classification, wherein each script corresponds to a different classification. For at least these reasons, Independent Claims 9 and 15 are allowable over any cited reference, or combination of references. The corresponding dependent claims are also patentably distinct for analogous reasons. Notice to this effect is respectfully requested in the form of a full allowance of these claims.” (See page 13 of REMARKS, filed 06/09/2026).
In response to the applicant’s argument that none of the references alone or in combination teach, suggest, or disclose “using a computer model to analyze content of communications destined to a public safety answering point (PSAP) to determine a classification for communications”, it is noted that the paragraph [0021] of Martin (also cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 03/27/2026) teaches stepping through the decision tree using the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device to determine the emergency category based at least in part on the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device and at least in part on the nature of the emergency (see [0021]). In addition, [0100] discloses that the EMS access a decision tree and steps through the decision tree using emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device to determine the likely emergency. This is similar to the claimed concept of “using a computer model to analyze content of the communication to determining a classification for the communication”.
In response to the applicant’s argument that none of the references alone or in combination teach, suggest, or disclose “wherein the classification is one of an emergency PSAP classification, a non-emergency PSAP classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification”, the Applicant’s remarks do not provide any specific reasons as to why either the findings of fact or the legal conclusion that the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC § 102/103 are allegedly in error. Paragraph [0104]-[0105], [0075], [0129] and [0135] were cited as teaching the claimed features. Applicant’s remarks are only generalizations not tied to the facts of the cases that amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how.
In response to the applicant’s argument that none of the references alone or in combination teach, suggest, or disclose “receiving at least one response to the one or more questions”, applicant’s attention is taken to paragraphs [0004]-[0005], [0008], and [0073]. For e.g., paragraph [0004]-[0005] of Martin teaches gathering information without requiring human assistance. More specifically, when a person generates an emergency alert using a communication device (such as by dialing 9-1-1 on a mobile phone in the United States), an emergency management system (EMS) initiates an autonomous communication session with the user of the communication device through which the user can submit critical information regarding their emergency. The emergency information can be gathered through the autonomous communication session without requiring a human call-taker. Furthermore, [0008] explicitly teaches that the emergency information extracted from the autonomous communication session comprises answers received from the user in response to the emergency response questions. Also, paragraph [0073] discloses that the EMS can pose questions to the user of the communication device regarding the user's location or the nature of the user's emergency
Regarding the limitation “using the computer model to select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification of each communication and execute the selected script to communicate one or more questions from the selected script to a user associated with each communication, wherein each script of the plurality of scripts corresponds to a different classification”, Applicant's arguments for these similarly recited limitations in independent claims 9 and 15 appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the cited references Martin fails to disclose the similarly recited limitations of claim 1. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the independent claims persist.
Applicant's arguments for the dependent claims 10-14 and 16-20 appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the combination of cited references fails to disclose all the limitations of respective independent claims 9 and 15. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the dependent claims persist.
Double Patenting Rejections
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 7 and 19 of co-pending application No. 18601683. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the instant application are obvious variation of the method claims of the co-pending application, as shown in the table below:
Current Application (#:18/601,645)
Co-Pending Application No. 18/601,683
Claim 1:
A method for classifying communications to a public safety answering point (PSAP), the method comprising:
analyzing a communication from an electronic device to a PSAP;
intercepting the communication to the PSAP before the communication reaches a human operator at the PSAP;
using a computer model to analyze content of the communication to determine a classification for the communication, wherein the classification is one of an emergency PSAP classification, a non-emergency PSAP classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification;
using the computer model to select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification of the communication and execute the selected script to execute a script and communicate one or more questions from the selected script to a user associated with the communication to the PSAP, wherein each script of the plurality of scripts corresponds to a different classification;
receiving at least one response to the one or more questions; and
sending the communication, the determined classification for the communication, and the at least one response to the one or more questions to a human operator at the PSAP, wherein the determined classification is provided to the human operator in association with the communication.
Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
determining an initial communication is sent to a public safety answering point (PSAP), wherein the initial communication describes an event;
intercepting the initial communication to the PSAP before the initial communication reaches a human operator at the PSAP;
analyzing content of the initial communication to the PSAP to determine whether a classification for the initial communication is an emergency classification, a non-emergency classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification;
using a computer model to execute a script and communicate one or more questions from the script to a user associated with the initial communication to the PSAP, wherein the script is at least partially based on the determined classification of the initial communication;
receiving at least one response to the one or more questions; and
sending the initial communication, the one or more questions, and the at least one response to the human operator at the PSAP.
Claim 2:
The method of Claim 1, wherein a computer model comprises an artificial intelligence model trained using machine learning algorithms.
Claim 8:
… analyzing, using at least one of natural language processing or machine learning, content of the initial communication to the PSAP to determine …
Claim 3:
The method of Claim 2, wherein the computer model is used to request additional details related to the communication to help determine the classification for the communication.
Claim 19:
The method of Claim 15, wherein a script is used as a guide for the chat bot to engage in the chat or dialogue.
Claim 4:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the communication to the PSAP is intercepted while the communication is in transit between the electronic device and the PSAP.
Claim 1:
… intercepting the initial communication to the PSAP before the initial communication reaches a human operator at the PSAP; …
Claim 5:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the communication to the PSAP is a text communication.
Claim 3:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the initial communication to the PSAP is a text communication.
Claim 6:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the communication to the PSAP is an audio communication and the audio communication is converted to text before a classification for the communication is determined.
Claim 4:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the initial communication to the PSAP and the at least one response are audio communications and the audio communications are converted to text before being sent to the human operator at the PSAP.
Claim 7:
The method of Claim 6, further comprising: subclassifying the communication.
Claim 7:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising: using the computer model to execute a fire script if the initial communication is a fire emergency PSAP communication; using the computer model to execute a medical emergency script if the initial communication is a medical emergency PSAP communication; and using the computer model to execute a crime script if the initial communication is a crime related emergency PSAP communication.
Claim 8:
The method of Claim 7, wherein the subclassifications is one or more of a fire emergency subclassification, a medical emergency subclassification, and/or a crime related emergency subclassification.
Claim 7:
The method of Claim 1, further comprising: using the computer model to execute a fire script if the initial communication is a fire emergency PSAP communication; using the computer model to execute a medical emergency script if the initial communication is a medical emergency PSAP communication; and using the computer model to execute a crime script if the initial communication is a crime related emergency PSAP communication.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 9-13, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4 and 19 of co-pending application No. 18601683 in view of Reddy, US 20190068784 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the instant application are obvious variation of the method claims of the co-pending application, as shown in the table below:
Current Application (#:18/601,645)
Co-Pending Application No. 18/601,683
Claim 9:
A method, comprising:
using a computer model to analyze content of communications destined to a public safety answering point (PSAP) to determine a classification for communications, wherein the classification is one of an emergency PSAP classification, a non- emergency PSAP classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification;
using the computer model to select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification of each communication and execute the selected script to communicate one or more questions from the selected script to a user associated with each communication, wherein each script of the plurality of scripts corresponds to a different classification;
receiving at least one response to the one or more questions;
sending communications with the emergency PSAP classification to an emergency PSAP communication queue at the PSAP;
sending communications with the non-emergency PSAP classification to a non- emergency PSAP communication queue at the PSAP; and
sending communications with the not related to PSAP services classification to a not related to PSAP services communication queue at the PSAP.
Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
…
analyzing content of the initial communication to the PSAP to determine whether a classification for the initial communication is an emergency classification, a non-emergency classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification;
using a computer model to execute a script and communicate one or more questions from the script to a user associated with the initial communication to the PSAP, wherein the script is at least partially based on the determined classification of the initial communication;
receiving at least one response to the one or more questions;
Co-pending application No. 18601683 does not explicitly claim sending communications with the emergency PSAP classification to an emergency PSAP communication queue at the PSAP; sending communications with the non-emergency PSAP classification to a non- emergency PSAP communication queue at the PSAP; and sending communications with the not related to PSAP services classification to a not related to PSAP services communication queue at the PSAP.
However, such feature are obvious from the teachings disclosed by Reddy (see Fig.1:100 and 108; also see [0013], [0025], [0029] and [0035]; examiner articulates that it would be obvious modification to have separate queue 108 such as critical call queue 108 disclosed in [0035] for low/ default priority calls).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reddy with co-pending application No. 18601683 to send communications with the emergency PSAP classification to an emergency PSAP communication queue at the PSAP; send communications with the non-emergency PSAP classification to a non- emergency PSAP communication queue at the PSAP; and send communications with the not related to PSAP services classification to a not related to PSAP services communication queue at the PSAP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that waiting emergency calls can be answered out of order based on assigned priorities to respond more quickly to waiting calls that have been identified as more urgent than other waiting calls (Reddy: [0013]).
Claim 10:
The method of Claim 9, wherein a computer model is used to determine the classification for the communications.
Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
… analyzing content of the initial communication to the PSAP to determine whether a classification for the initial communication is an emergency classification, a non-emergency classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification; …
Claim 11:
The method of Claim 10, wherein the emergency PSAP communication queue is a high priority queue at the PSAP.
Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
… analyzing content of the initial communication to the PSAP to determine whether a classification for the initial communication is an emergency classification, a non-emergency classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification; …
Claim 12:
The method of Claim 11, wherein the non-emergency PSAP communication queue is a medium priority queue with a priority lower than the emergency PSAP communication queue.
Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
… analyzing content of the initial communication to the PSAP to determine whether a classification for the initial communication is an emergency classification, a non-emergency classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification; …
Claim 13:
The method of Claim 9, wherein the not related to PSAP services communication queue is a low priority queue with a priority lower than the non-emergency PSAP communication queue.
Claim 1:
A method, comprising:
… analyzing content of the initial communication to the PSAP to determine whether a classification for the initial communication is an emergency classification, a non-emergency classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification; …
As for Claim(s) 15, the claims list all the same elements of claim 9, but in a system comprising: memory; at least one processor; a communication analysis engine configured to carry out the steps of claim 9, rather than the method form. In addition, claim 11-13 recite concept of priority classification and/or queuing. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 9 and 11-13 applies equally as well to claim 15.
As for Claim 16, the claim depends on claim 15, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 2.
As for Claim 17, the claim depends on claim 16, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claim 6. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 6.
As for Claims 19-20, the claims depend on claim 15, but does not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 3-4 respectively. Therefore, claims 19-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 3-4 respectively.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 14 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4 and 19 of co-pending application No. 18601683 in view of Reddy, US 20190068784 A1) in view of Arnold et al. (hereinafter, ARNOLD, WO 2020028661 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the instant application are obvious variation of the method claims of the co-pending application, as shown below.
Regarding claim 14, co-pending application No. 18601683 (modified by Reddy) discloses the method of claim 9, as set forth above. Co-pending application No. 18601683 (modified by Reddy) does not explicitly disclose wherein communications classified as not related to PSAP services include accidental communications, prank communications, and spam communications.
However, in an analogous art, Arnold discloses wherein communications classified as not related to PSAP services include accidental communications, prank communications, and spam communications (see [0042]; identifying a type of incident based on the one or more received calls from a communication device 105; For example, … when the call is a prank call or an accidental call; also see [0058]; determine when the call is a spam or telemarketing number… blacklisted callers for example, civilians who repetitiously prank call the command center).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arnold with co-pending application No. 18601683 and Reddy so that the communications classified as not related to PSAP services include accidental communications, prank communications, and spam communications.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for optimizing a call queue at a dispatch center (Arnold: see Abstract and [0019]).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 18 is/are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4 and 19 of co-pending application No. 18601683 in view of Reddy, US 20190068784 A1) in view of Balthasar et al. (hereinafter, Balthasar, US 20140094134 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations in the instant application are obvious variation of the method claims of the co-pending application, as shown below.
Regarding claim 18, co-pending application No. 18601683 (modified by Reddy) discloses the system of claim 15, as set forth above. Co-pending application No. 18601683 (modified by Reddy) does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication analysis engine includes a translation engine to translate the communication to a preferred language of a PSAP operator.
However, in an analogous art, Balthasar disclose wherein the communication analysis engine includes a translation engine to translate the communication to a preferred language of a PSAP operator (see [0019]; translation capabilities to instantly translate the call from one language to another. For example, a call in French can be instantly translated into English and, similarly, any dialogue taken place between the caller and the operator may be translated and copies in two or more languages (e.g., French, Spanish and English) may be maintained for reference and other relevant purposes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Balthasar with co-pending application No. 18601683 and Reddy so that the communication analysis engine includes a translation engine to translate the communication to a preferred language of a PSAP operator.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to facilitate dynamic, automated and prioritized call control to triage and efficiently handle calls, such as emergency calls (Balthasar: [0013]).
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martin et al. (hereinafter, Martin, US 20200274962 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Martin discloses a method for classifying communications to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (see [0021] in view of [0005] for PSAP; disclosed herein is a method for providing emergency assistance by an emergency management system (EMS), the method comprising: … based at least in part on the emergency information received from the electronic device, determining an emergency category for the emergency), the method comprising:
analyzing a communication from an electronic device to a PSAP (see [0005]; when a person generates an emergency alert using a communication device (such as by dialing 9-1-1 on a mobile phone in the United States), an emergency management system (EMS) initiates an autonomous communication session with the user of the communication device through which the user can submit critical information regarding their emergency; The EMS can facilitate the collection and transfer of emergency information gathered through an autonomous communication session to emergency service providers (ESPs) such as emergency dispatch centers (EDCs) and/or public safety answering points (PSAPs); also see [0104]-[0105] for emergency data analysis scenario; also see [0129]; the emergency data and/or communications (e.g., automated chat messages) undergoes natural language processing using one or more machine learning algorithms);
intercepting the communication to the PSAP before the communication reaches a human operator at the PSAP (see [0005]; when a person generates an emergency alert using a communication device (such as by dialing 9-1-1 on a mobile phone in the United States), an emergency management system (EMS) initiates an autonomous communication session with the user of the communication device through which the user can submit critical information regarding their emergency; The emergency information can be gathered through the autonomous communication session without requiring a human call-taker; The EMS can facilitate the collection and transfer of emergency information gathered through an autonomous communication session to emergency service providers (ESPs) such as emergency dispatch centers (EDCs) and/or public safety answering points (PSAPs);
using a computer model to analyze content of the communication to determine a classification for the communication (see [0021]; providing emergency assistance by an emergency management system (EMS), the method comprising: … based at least in part on the emergency information received from the electronic device, determining an emergency category for the emergency; also see [0104]-[0105] in view of NLP/ ML techniques taught in [0129]; also see [0146]; [0073] and [0007]-[0008]; also see [0100]), wherein the classification is one of an emergency PSAP classification, a non-emergency PSAP classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification (see [0104]-[0105]; the emergency data associated with the emergency alert includes audio or video, and the emergency management system determines the nature of the emergency by processing the audio or video for audio or visual cues; For example, the emergency management system may receive audio recorded by the smart speaker and recognize the word “fallen” or “bleeding” within the audio and determine the nature of the emergency to be a medical emergency; also see [0135]; an emergency alert is associated with a non-emergency situation (e.g., request for a tow truck after car breaks down));
using the computer model to select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification of the communication and execute the selected script to communicate one or more questions from the selected script to a user associated with the communication to the PSAP (see [0008]; initiating the autonomous communication session comprises transmitting one or more messages comprising emergency response questions to the communication device according to a predetermined script… adapting the predetermined script during the autonomous communication session according to one or more responses from the user; also see [0012] in view of [0100] and Fig.14; the predetermined script is adapted according to a decision tree; the EMS accesses the decision tree based on a nature of emergency determined for an emergency; also see [0021] and [0073]; determining a nature of the emergency first, then accessing a decision tree based on the nature of the emergency determined, posing questions to the user through the emergency assistant application, receiving responses to the questions, and using each response received from the user during the autonomous communication session to move one step forward on the decision tree while the script (or sequence of messages) is adapted (“selected”) to ask more detailed and/or specific question than the precious level; In some embodiments, the nature of the emergency is one of medical, fire, or police; the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithms), wherein each script of the plurality of scripts corresponds to a different classification (see [0021]; determining a nature of the emergency; and b) wherein determining the emergency category is based at least in part on the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device and at least in part on the nature of the emergency. In some embodiments, the nature of the emergency is one of medical, fire, or police; For e.g., in one scenario, based on the nature of the emergency, one of the questions posed to the user through the emergency assistant application prompts the user to identify an afflicted body part; also see [0025]; processing the emergency data using an emergency classifier configured to identify the dispatch category for the emergency.. applying a machine learning algorithm to the emergency data to determine the dispatch category; also see [0073]; the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by asking the user for more details regarding the emergency, as depicted in FIG.5. In some embodiments, the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithm; also see [0135]-[ 0136]; examiner articulates that the script that will be executed for an emergency situation is different from non-emergency situation (e.g., car breaking down) where the user merely needs to request for a tow truck, and the emergency assistant application does not prompt the user to identify an afflicted body part when requesting for a tow truck after car breaks down);
receiving at least one response to the one or more questions (see [0004]; gathering information without requiring human assistance; also see [0005]; when a person generates an emergency alert using a communication device (such as by dialing 9-1-1 on a mobile phone in the United States), an emergency management system (EMS) initiates an autonomous communication session with the user of the communication device through which the user can submit critical information regarding their emergency. The emergency information can be gathered through the autonomous communication session without requiring a human call-taker; also see [0008]; the emergency information extracted from the autonomous communication session comprises answers received from the user in response to the emergency response questions; also see [0073]; the EMS can pose questions to the user of the communication device regarding the user's location or the nature of the user's emergency); and
sending the communication (see [0113]; A call taker at the PSAP then answers the emergency call), the determined classification for the communication, and the at least one response to the one or more questions to a human operator at the PSAP, wherein the determined classification is provided to the human operator in association with the communication (see [0178]; EMS responds with “Your emergency has been noted and delivered to your local PSAP; also see [0179]; The EMS then shares the location and nature of Darius' emergency with the local PSAP; also see [0183]; The EMS also transmits the description of Caroline's emergency her local PSAP; Just after Caroline finishes tending to her wound according to the safety recommendation, her 9-1-1 call is picked up by a call taker at the local PSAP; also see question and answer displayed in Fig.7B:716; also see [0084]-[0085] in view of Fig.7B:760; the EMS has extracted emergency information from the autonomous communication session, and the emergency information 716 is now displayed within the GUI of the emergency response application 760. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 7B, the emergency information includes an address of the emergency, whether the emergency has been confirmed, the type of the emergency (e.g., fire), a severity of the emergency (e.g., critical), and a photo 708 of the emergency (e.g., the photo 608 transmitted to the EMS through the autonomous communication session depicted in FIG. 6). In some embodiments, a user of the emergency response application 760 can transmit or transfer emergency information extracted from an autonomous communication session to a computer aided dispatch (CAD) system, such as by selecting a Push to CAD button 718, as illustrated by FIG. 7B. In some embodiments, the EMS transmits emergency information extracted from an autonomous communication session in real-time. For example, in some embodiments, the EMS transmits answers from a user to questions posed through an autonomous communication session to an ESP as the answers are being received).
Regarding claim 2, Martin discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein a computer model comprises an artificial intelligence model trained using machine learning algorithm (see [0146]; an “autonomous communication session” is held between a user of an electronic device and an artificial conversational entity (e.g., a chatbot). The artificial conversational entity can communicate with the user of the electronic device according to a predetermined script or completely independently using any appropriate form of artificial intelligence, such as deep learning or natural language processing. In some embodiments, a chatbot communicates with a user of an electronic device by posing questions to the user to gather emergency data or information; also see [0073]; the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithms).
Regarding claim 3, Martin discloses the method of claim 2, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein the computer model is used to request additional details related to the communication to help determine the classification for the communication (see [0146]; an “autonomous communication session” is held between a user of an electronic device and an artificial conversational entity (e.g., a chatbot). The artificial conversational entity can communicate with the user of the electronic device according to a predetermined script or completely independently using any appropriate form of artificial intelligence, such as deep learning or natural language processing. In some embodiments, a chatbot communicates with a user of an electronic device by posing questions to the user to gather emergency data or information; also see [0073]; in some embodiments, the EMS can pose questions to the user of the communication device regarding the user's location or the nature of the user's emergency; the messages 304 are transmitted to the communication device 310 according to a predetermined script; the sequence of messages transmitted to the user during the autonomous communication session 303 is adapted dynamically based on responses received from the user. For example, in some embodiments, if the user indicates that they are in a life-threatening situation, the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by prompting the user to find a safer environment, if possible. If the user indicates that they are not in a life-threatening situation, the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by asking the user for more details regarding the emergency, as depicted in FIG. 5. In some embodiments, the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithms; also see [0007]-[0008]; also see [0021]; determining the emergency category is based at least in part on the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device and at least in part on the nature of the emergency).
Regarding claim 4, Martin discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein the communication to the PSAP is intercepted while the communication is in transit between the electronic device and the PSAP (see [0004]-[0005] and [0066]; example of emergency service provider (ESP) are a public safety answering point (PSAP), or an emergency dispatch center; also see [0012]; identifying the user potentially affected by the emergency comprises: a) detecting an emergency call made from the communication device to the emergency service provider (ESP); and b) determining that the ESP is unable to respond to the emergency call, wherein the emergency response message is transmitted to the communication device in response to determining that the ESP is unable to respond to the emergency call; also see [0177]-[0178] & [0182]; smart speaker begins dialing 9-1-1. Simultaneously, the smart speaker sends an emergency alert to the emergency management system (EMS); also see [0113]; A call taker at the PSAP then answers the emergency call; also see [0178]; EMS responds with “Your emergency has been noted and delivered to your local PSAP; also see [0179]; The EMS then shares the location and nature of Darius' emergency with the local PSAP; also see [0183]; The EMS also transmits the description of Caroline's emergency her local PSAP; Just after Caroline finishes tending to her wound according to the safety recommendation, her 9-1-1 call is picked up by a call taker at the local PSAP).
Regarding claim 5, Martin discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein the communication to the PSAP is a text communication (see [0012]; confirmation of the emergency comprises a second SMS text message received from the user in response to the first SMS text message; the graphical user interface comprises a text entry field for the user to submit free response responses to questions during the autonomous communication session; also see [0075] in view of Fig.5:506C; the graphical user interface includes a text entry field 506C for the user to submit free response responses to questions posed by the EMS through the mobile application).
Regarding claim 6, Martin discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein the communication to the PSAP is an audio communication (see [0008]; autonomous communication session is an audio session conducted through the microphone and speaker of the IoT device) and the audio communication is converted to text before a classification for the communication is determined (see [0076]; verbal responses received from the user through a communication device during an interactive call are converted into text using speech-to-text technology).
Regarding claim 7, Martin discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses subclassifying the communication (see [0075]; the EMS poses the question “What is the nature of your emergency?” through the graphical user interface and presents four soft buttons 506B as options for response: Fire, Med (i.e., a medical emergency), Police, and Car (i.e., a vehicular emergency); also see [0129]).
Regarding claim 8, Martin discloses the method of claim 1, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein the subclassifications is one or more of a fire emergency subclassification, a medical emergency subclassification, and/or a crime related emergency subclassification (see [0075]; the EMS poses the question “What is the nature of your emergency?” through the graphical user interface and presents four soft buttons 506B as options for response: Fire, Med (i.e., a medical emergency), Police, and Car (i.e., a vehicular emergency); also see [0129]; chat session information to determine an emergency type (e.g., injury or accident, medical problem, shooting, violent crime, robbery, tornado, or fire) and/or emergency level (e.g., safe, low, medium, high)).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 9-13, 15-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (hereinafter, Martin, US 20200274962 A1) in view of Reddy, US 20190068784 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Martin discloses a method, comprising:
using a computer model to analyze content of communications (see [0021]; providing emergency assistance by an emergency management system (EMS), the method comprising: … based at least in part on the emergency information received from the electronic device, determining an emergency category for the emergency; also see [0104]-[0105] in view of NLP/ ML techniques taught in [0129]; also see [0146]; [0073] and [0007]-[0008]) destined to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (see [0005]; when a person generates an emergency alert using a communication device (such as by dialing 9-1-1 on a mobile phone in the United States), an emergency management system (EMS) initiates an autonomous communication session with the user of the communication device through which the user can submit critical information regarding their emergency; The EMS can facilitate the collection and transfer of emergency information gathered through an autonomous communication session to emergency service providers (ESPs) such as emergency dispatch centers (EDCs) and/or public safety answering points (PSAPs); also see [0113], [0178]-[0179] and [0183]) to determine a classification for communications (see [0021]; providing emergency assistance by an emergency management system (EMS), the method comprising: … based at least in part on the emergency information received from the electronic device, determining an emergency category for the emergency; also see [0104]-[0105] in view of NLP/ ML techniques taught in [0129]; also see [0146]; [0073] and [0007]-[0008]; also see [0100]), wherein the classification is one of an emergency PSAP classification, a non-emergency PSAP classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification (see [0104]-[0105]; the emergency data associated with the emergency alert includes audio or video, and the emergency management system determines the nature of the emergency by processing the audio or video for audio or visual cues; For example, the emergency management system may receive audio recorded by the smart speaker and recognize the word “fallen” or “bleeding” within the audio and determine the nature of the emergency to be a medical emergency; also see [0075]; the EMS poses the question “What is the nature of your emergency?” through the graphical user interface and presents four soft buttons 506B as options for response: Fire, Med (i.e., a medical emergency), Police, and Car (i.e., a vehicular emergency); also see [0135]; an emergency alert is associated with a non-emergency situation (e.g., request for a tow truck after car breaks down); also see [0129]; chat session information to determine an emergency type (e.g., injury or accident, medical problem, shooting, violent crime, robbery, tornado, or fire) and/or emergency level (e.g., safe, low, medium, high));
using the computer model to select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification of each communication and execute the selected script to communicate one or more questions from the selected script to a user associated with each communication (see [0008]; initiating the autonomous communication session comprises transmitting one or more messages comprising emergency response questions to the communication device according to a predetermined script… adapting the predetermined script during the autonomous communication session according to one or more responses from the user; also see [0012] in view of [0100] and Fig.14; the predetermined script is adapted according to a decision tree; the EMS accesses the decision tree based on a nature of emergency determined for an emergency; also see [0021] and [0073]; determining a nature of the emergency first, then accessing a decision tree based on the nature of the emergency determined, posing questions to the user through the emergency assistant application, receiving responses to the questions, and using each response received from the user during the autonomous communication session to move one step forward on the decision tree while the script (or sequence of messages) is adapted (“selected”) to ask more detailed and/or specific question than the precious level; In some embodiments, the nature of the emergency is one of medical, fire, or police; the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithms), wherein each script of the plurality of scripts corresponds to a different classification (see [0021]; determining a nature of the emergency; and b) wherein determining the emergency category is based at least in part on the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device and at least in part on the nature of the emergency. In some embodiments, the nature of the emergency is one of medical, fire, or police; For e.g., in one scenario, based on the nature of the emergency, one of the questions posed to the user through the emergency assistant application prompts the user to identify an afflicted body part; also see [0025]; processing the emergency data using an emergency classifier configured to identify the dispatch category for the emergency.. applying a machine learning algorithm to the emergency data to determine the dispatch category; also see [0073]; the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by asking the user for more details regarding the emergency, as depicted in FIG.5. In some embodiments, the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithm; also see [0135]-[ 0136]; examiner articulates that the script that will be executed for emergency situation is different from non-emergency situation (e.g., car breaking down) where the user merely needs to request for a tow truck, and the emergency assistant application does not prompt the user to identify an afflicted body part when requesting for a tow truck after car breaks down); and
receiving at least one response to the one or more questions (see [0004]; gathering information without requiring human assistance; also see [0005]; when a person generates an emergency alert using a communication device (such as by dialing 9-1-1 on a mobile phone in the United States), an emergency management system (EMS) initiates an autonomous communication session with the user of the communication device through which the user can submit critical information regarding their emergency. The emergency information can be gathered through the autonomous communication session without requiring a human call-taker; also see [0008]; the emergency information extracted from the autonomous communication session comprises answers received from the user in response to the emergency response questions; also see [0073]; the EMS can pose questions to the user of the communication device regarding the user's location or the nature of the user's emergency).
Although, Martin also discloses that after a dispatch recommendation is sent to an emergency service provider, an incident is created within the ESP system (such as within a CAD system included in the ESP system) corresponding to the emergency alert for which the dispatch recommendation was created (see [0108]), Martin does not explicitly disclose sending communications with the emergency PSAP classification to an emergency PSAP communication queue at the PSAP; sending communications with the non-emergency PSAP classification to a non- emergency PSAP communication queue at the PSAP; and sending communications with the not related to PSAP services classification to a not related to PSAP services communication queue at the PSAP.
However, in an analogous art, Reddy teaches sending communications with the emergency PSAP classification to an emergency PSAP communication queue (see Fig.1:108) at the PSAP (see Fig.1:100; also see [0013]; determine the nature of the emergency associated with the calls on hold. The calls can thus be prioritized within a call queue based on the nature of the emergency; also see [0035]; emergency calls that have had their priority levels increased from a default level based on their associated transcripts can be moved to a dedicated critical call queue 108 displayed separately in the dashboard 114. In these examples, if any emergency calls are present in the critical call queue 108, they can be answered before operators 104 answer any emergency calls in the regular call queue 108);
sending communications with the non-emergency PSAP classification to a non-emergency PSAP communication queue (see Fig.1:108) at the PSAP (see Fig.1:100; also see [0013]; determine the nature of the emergency associated with the calls on hold. The calls can thus be prioritized within a call queue based on the nature of the emergency; also see [0035]; emergency calls that have had their priority levels increased from a default level based on their associated transcripts can be moved to a dedicated critical call queue 108 displayed separately in the dashboard 114. In these examples, if any emergency calls are present in the critical call queue 108, they can be answered before operators 104 answer any emergency calls in the regular call queue 108; also see Fig.3:108 that shows call queue 108 with “HIGH” call labels/ priority attribute; also see [0026]; value of the priority attribute can indicate one of a plurality of different possible priority levels, such as low, medium, and high priority or a priority level on a numeric scale; examiner articulates that it would be obvious modification to have separate queue 108 such as critical call queue 108 disclosed in [0035] for medium/ high priority calls); and
sending communications with the not related to PSAP services classification to a not related to PSAP services communication queue (see Fig.1:108) at the PSAP (see Fig.1:100; also see [0013]; determine the nature of the emergency associated with the calls on hold. The calls can thus be prioritized within a call queue based on the nature of the emergency; also see [0025]; call has the lowest priority by default; also see [0039]; a PSAP Management System 106 can place the emergency call on hold and add a representation of the emergency call to a call queue 108. The PSAP Management System 106 can assign a default priority level to the new emergency call; also see Fig.3:108 that shows call queue 108 with “Default” call labels/ priority attribute for communications that are not related to PSAP services, such as “everyone seems ok”, or “I think my cat is stuck in a tree”; examiner articulates that it would be obvious modification to have separate queue 108 such as critical call queue 108 disclosed in [0035] for low/ default priority calls).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reddy with Martin to send communications with the emergency PSAP classification to an emergency PSAP communication queue at the PSAP; send communications with the non-emergency PSAP classification to a non- emergency PSAP communication queue at the PSAP; and send communications with the not related to PSAP services classification to a not related to PSAP services communication queue at the PSAP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that waiting emergency calls can be answered out of order based on assigned priorities to respond more quickly to waiting calls that have been identified as more urgent than other waiting calls (Reddy: [0013]).
Regarding claim 10, Martin (modified by Reddy) discloses the method of claim 9, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein a computer model is used to determine the classification for the communications (see [0146]; an “autonomous communication session” is held between a user of an electronic device and an artificial conversational entity (e.g., a chatbot). The artificial conversational entity can communicate with the user of the electronic device according to a predetermined script or completely independently using any appropriate form of artificial intelligence, such as deep learning or natural language processing. In some embodiments, a chatbot communicates with a user of an electronic device by posing questions to the user to gather emergency data or information; also see [0073]; in some embodiments, the EMS can pose questions to the user of the communication device regarding the user's location or the nature of the user's emergency; the messages 304 are transmitted to the communication device 310 according to a predetermined script; the sequence of messages transmitted to the user during the autonomous communication session 303 is adapted dynamically based on responses received from the user. For example, in some embodiments, if the user indicates that they are in a life-threatening situation, the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by prompting the user to find a safer environment, if possible. If the user indicates that they are not in a life-threatening situation, the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by asking the user for more details regarding the emergency, as depicted in FIG. 5. In some embodiments, the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithms; also see [0007]-[0008]; also see [0021]; determining the emergency category is based at least in part on the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device and at least in part on the nature of the emergency).
Regarding claim 11, Martin (modified by Reddy) discloses the method of claim 10, as set forth above. In addition, Reddy further discloses wherein the emergency PSAP communication queue is a high priority queue at the PSAP (see Fig.1:100; also see [0013]; determine the nature of the emergency associated with the calls on hold. The calls can thus be prioritized within a call queue based on the nature of the emergency; also see [0035]; emergency calls that have had their priority levels increased from a default level based on their associated transcripts can be moved to a dedicated critical call queue 108 displayed separately in the dashboard 114. In these examples, if any emergency calls are present in the critical call queue 108, they can be answered before operators 104 answer any emergency calls in the regular call queue 108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reddy with Martin so that the emergency PSAP communication queue is a high priority queue at the PSAP.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that waiting emergency calls can be answered out of order based on assigned priorities to respond more quickly to waiting calls that have been identified as more urgent than other waiting calls (Reddy: [0013]).
Regarding claim 12, Martin (modified by Reddy) discloses the method of claim 11, as set forth above. In addition, Reddy further discloses wherein the non-emergency PSAP communication queue is a medium priority queue with a priority lower than the emergency PSAP communication queue (see Fig.1:100; also see [0013]; determine the nature of the emergency associated with the calls on hold. The calls can thus be prioritized within a call queue based on the nature of the emergency; also see [0035]; emergency calls that have had their priority levels increased from a default level based on their associated transcripts can be moved to a dedicated critical call queue 108 displayed separately in the dashboard 114. In these examples, if any emergency calls are present in the critical call queue 108, they can be answered before operators 104 answer any emergency calls in the regular call queue 108; also see Fig.3:108 that shows call queue 108 with “HIGH” call labels/ priority attribute; also see [0026]; value of the priority attribute can indicate one of a plurality of different possible priority levels, such as low, medium, and high priority or a priority level on a numeric scale; examiner articulates that it would be obvious modification to have separate queue 108 such as critical call queue 108 disclosed in [0035] for medium/ high priority calls; examiner also articulates that medium/ high priority calls have a priority lower than critical call or calls moved to critical call queue 108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reddy with Martin so that the non-emergency PSAP communication queue is a medium priority queue with a priority lower than the emergency PSAP communication queue.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that waiting emergency calls can be answered out of order based on assigned priorities to respond more quickly to waiting calls that have been identified as more urgent than other waiting calls (Reddy: [0013]).
Regarding claim 13, Martin (modified by Reddy) discloses the method of claim 9, as set forth above. In addition, Reddy further discloses wherein the not related to PSAP services communication queue is a low priority queue with a priority lower than the non-emergency PSAP communication queue (see Fig.1:100; also see [0013]; determine the nature of the emergency associated with the calls on hold. The calls can thus be prioritized within a call queue based on the nature of the emergency; also see [0025]; call has the lowest priority by default; also see [0039]; a PSAP Management System 106 can place the emergency call on hold and add a representation of the emergency call to a call queue 108. The PSAP Management System 106 can assign a default priority level to the new emergency call; also see Fig.3:108 that shows call queue 108 with “Default” call labels/ priority attribute for communications that are not related to PSAP services, such as “everyone seems ok”, or “I think my cat is stuck in a tree”; examiner articulates that it would be obvious modification to have separate queue 108 such as critical call queue 108 disclosed in [0035] for low/ default priority calls; examiner also articulates that low/ default priority calls have a priority lower than medium/ high priority calls).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reddy with Martin so that the not related to PSAP services communication queue is a low priority queue with a priority lower than the non-emergency PSAP communication queue.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that waiting emergency calls can be answered out of order based on assigned priorities to respond more quickly to waiting calls that have been identified as more urgent than other waiting calls (Reddy: [0013]).
Regarding claim 15, Martin discloses a system (see [0011]; disclosed herein is a system; also see Fig.1A:120) for classifying communications to a public safety answering point (see [0021] in view of [0005] for PSAP; for providing emergency assistance by an emergency management system (EMS), the method comprising: … based at least in part on the emergency information received from the electronic device, determining an emergency category for the emergency), comprising:
memory (see Fig.1A:127 in view of [0063]; emergency management system (EMS) 120 includes … an EMS memory unit 127);
at least one processor (see [0011]; system comprising at least one processor; also see Fig.1A:126 in view of [0063]; the EMS CPU 126 is implemented as one or more microprocessors);
a communication analysis engine (see Fig.1A:126) configured to:
use a computer model to analyze content of communications (see [0021]; providing emergency assistance by an emergency management system (EMS), the method comprising: … based at least in part on the emergency information received from the electronic device, determining an emergency category for the emergency; also see [0104]-[0105] in view of NLP/ ML techniques taught in [0129]; also see [0146]; [0073] and [0007]-[0008]) destined to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (see [0005]; when a person generates an emergency alert using a communication device (such as by dialing 9-1-1 on a mobile phone in the United States), an emergency management system (EMS) initiates an autonomous communication session with the user of the communication device through which the user can submit critical information regarding their emergency; The EMS can facilitate the collection and transfer of emergency information gathered through an autonomous communication session to emergency service providers (ESPs) such as emergency dispatch centers (EDCs) and/or public safety answering points (PSAPs); also see [0113], [0178]-[0179] and [0183]) to determine a classification for communications (see [0021]; providing emergency assistance by an emergency management system (EMS), the method comprising: … based at least in part on the emergency information received from the electronic device, determining an emergency category for the emergency; also see [0104]-[0105] in view of NLP/ ML techniques taught in [0129]; also see [0146]; [0073] and [0007]-[0008]), wherein the classification is one of an emergency PSAP classification, a non-emergency PSAP classification, or a not related to PSAP services classification (see [0104]-[0105]; the emergency data associated with the emergency alert includes audio or video, and the emergency management system determines the nature of the emergency by processing the audio or video for audio or visual cues; For example, the emergency management system may receive audio recorded by the smart speaker and recognize the word “fallen” or “bleeding” within the audio and determine the nature of the emergency to be a medical emergency; also see [0075]; the EMS poses the question “What is the nature of your emergency?” through the graphical user interface and presents four soft buttons 506B as options for response: Fire, Med (i.e., a medical emergency), Police, and Car (i.e., a vehicular emergency); also see [0135]; an emergency alert is associated with a non-emergency situation (e.g., request for a tow truck after car breaks down); also see [0129]; chat session information to determine an emergency type (e.g., injury or accident, medical problem, shooting, violent crime, robbery, tornado, or fire) and/or emergency level (e.g., safe, low, medium, high));
select a script from a plurality of scripts based on the determined classification of each communication and execute the selected script to communicate one or more questions from the selected script to a user associated with each communication (see [0008]; initiating the autonomous communication session comprises transmitting one or more messages comprising emergency response questions to the communication device according to a predetermined script… adapting the predetermined script during the autonomous communication session according to one or more responses from the user; also see [0012] in view of [0100] and Fig.14; the predetermined script is adapted according to a decision tree; the EMS accesses the decision tree based on a nature of emergency determined for an emergency; also see [0021] and [0073]; determining a nature of the emergency first, then accessing a decision tree based on the nature of the emergency determined, posing questions to the user through the emergency assistant application, receiving responses to the questions, and using each response received from the user during the autonomous communication session to move one step forward on the decision tree while the script (or sequence of messages) is adapted (“selected”) to ask more detailed and/or specific question than the precious level; In some embodiments, the nature of the emergency is one of medical, fire, or police; the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithms), wherein each script of the plurality of scripts corresponds to a different classification (see [0021]; determining a nature of the emergency; and b) wherein determining the emergency category is based at least in part on the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device and at least in part on the nature of the emergency. In some embodiments, the nature of the emergency is one of medical, fire, or police; For e.g., in one scenario, based on the nature of the emergency, one of the questions posed to the user through the emergency assistant application prompts the user to identify an afflicted body part; also see [0025]; processing the emergency data using an emergency classifier configured to identify the dispatch category for the emergency… applying a machine learning algorithm to the emergency data to determine the dispatch category; also see [0073]; the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by asking the user for more details regarding the emergency, as depicted in FIG.5. In some embodiments, the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithm; also see [0135]-[ 0136]; examiner articulates that the script that will be executed for an emergency situation is different from non-emergency situation (e.g., car breaking down) where the user merely needs to request for a tow truck, and the emergency assistant application does not prompt the user to identify an afflicted body part when requesting for a tow truck after car breaks down); and
receive at least one response to the one or more questions (see [0004]; gathering information without requiring human assistance; also see [0005]; when a person generates an emergency alert using a communication device (such as by dialing 9-1-1 on a mobile phone in the United States), an emergency management system (EMS) initiates an autonomous communication session with the user of the communication device through which the user can submit critical information regarding their emergency. The emergency information can be gathered through the autonomous communication session without requiring a human call-taker; also see [0008]; the emergency information extracted from the autonomous communication session comprises answers received from the user in response to the emergency response questions; also see [0073]; the EMS can pose questions to the user of the communication device regarding the user's location or the nature of the user's emergency).
Although, Martin also discloses that after a dispatch recommendation is sent to an emergency service provider, an incident is created within the ESP system (such as within a CAD system included in the ESP system) corresponding to the emergency alert for which the dispatch recommendation was created (see [0108]), Martin does not explicitly disclose send communications with the emergency PSAP classification to a high priority queue at the PSAP; send communications with the non-emergency PSAP classification to a medium priority queue at the PSAP; and send communications with the not related to PSAP service classification to a low priority queue.
However, in an analogous art, Reddy teaches send communications with the emergency PSAP classification to a high priority queue (see Fig.1:108) at the PSAP (see Fig.1:100; also see [0013]; determine the nature of the emergency associated with the calls on hold. The calls can thus be prioritized within a call queue based on the nature of the emergency; also see [0035]; emergency calls that have had their priority levels increased from a default level based on their associated transcripts can be moved to a dedicated critical call queue 108 displayed separately in the dashboard 114. In these examples, if any emergency calls are present in the critical call queue 108, they can be answered before operators 104 answer any emergency calls in the regular call queue 108);
send communications with the non-emergency PSAP classification to a medium priority queue (see Fig.1:108) at the PSAP (see Fig.1:100; also see [0013]; determine the nature of the emergency associated with the calls on hold. The calls can thus be prioritized within a call queue based on the nature of the emergency; also see [0035]; emergency calls that have had their priority levels increased from a default level based on their associated transcripts can be moved to a dedicated critical call queue 108 displayed separately in the dashboard 114. In these examples, if any emergency calls are present in the critical call queue 108, they can be answered before operators 104 answer any emergency calls in the regular call queue 108; also see Fig.3:108 that shows call queue 108 with “HIGH” call labels/ priority attribute; also see [0026]; value of the priority attribute can indicate one of a plurality of different possible priority levels, such as low, medium, and high priority or a priority level on a numeric scale; examiner articulates that it would be obvious modification to have separate queue 108 such as critical call queue 108 disclosed in [0035] for medium/ high priority calls); and
send communications with the not related to PSAP service classification to a low priority queue (see Fig.1:108; also see [0013]; determine the nature of the emergency associated with the calls on hold. The calls can thus be prioritized within a call queue based on the nature of the emergency; also see [0025]; call has the lowest priority by default; also see [0039]; a PSAP Management System 106 can place the emergency call on hold and add a representation of the emergency call to a call queue 108. The PSAP Management System 106 can assign a default priority level to the new emergency call; also see Fig.3:108 that shows call queue 108 with “Default” call labels/ priority attribute for communications that are not related to PSAP services, such as “everyone seems ok”, or “I think my cat is stuck in a tree”; examiner articulates that it would be obvious modification to have separate queue 108 such as critical call queue 108 disclosed in [0035] for low/ default priority calls).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Reddy with Martin to send communications with the emergency PSAP classification to a high priority queue at the PSAP; send communications with the non-emergency PSAP classification to a medium priority queue at the PSAP; and send communications with the not related to PSAP service classification to a low priority queue.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that waiting emergency calls can be answered out of order based on assigned priorities to respond more quickly to waiting calls that have been identified as more urgent than other waiting calls (Reddy: [0013]).
Regarding claim 16, Martin (modified by Reddy) discloses the system of claim 15, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein the communication analysis engine includes a computer model used to determine the classification for the communication (see [0146]; an “autonomous communication session” is held between a user of an electronic device and an artificial conversational entity (e.g., a chatbot). The artificial conversational entity can communicate with the user of the electronic device according to a predetermined script or completely independently using any appropriate form of artificial intelligence, such as deep learning or natural language processing. In some embodiments, a chatbot communicates with a user of an electronic device by posing questions to the user to gather emergency data or information; also see [0073]; in some embodiments, the EMS can pose questions to the user of the communication device regarding the user's location or the nature of the user's emergency; the messages 304 are transmitted to the communication device 310 according to a predetermined script; the sequence of messages transmitted to the user during the autonomous communication session 303 is adapted dynamically based on responses received from the user. For example, in some embodiments, if the user indicates that they are in a life-threatening situation, the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by prompting the user to find a safer environment, if possible. If the user indicates that they are not in a life-threatening situation, the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by asking the user for more details regarding the emergency, as depicted in FIG. 5. In some embodiments, the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithms; also see [0007]-[0008]; also see [0021]; determining the emergency category is based at least in part on the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device and at least in part on the nature of the emergency).
Regarding claim 17, Martin (modified by Reddy) discloses the system of claim 16, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein the communication is an audio communication (see [0008]; autonomous communication session is an audio session conducted through the microphone and speaker of the IoT device) and the communication analysis engine includes a voice to text engine to convert the audio communication to text (see [0076]; verbal responses received from the user through a communication device during an interactive call are converted into text using speech-to-text technology).
Regarding claim 19, Martin (modified by Reddy) discloses the system of claim 15, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein the communication analysis engine collects additional information about the communication (see [0146]; an “autonomous communication session” is held between a user of an electronic device and an artificial conversational entity (e.g., a chatbot). The artificial conversational entity can communicate with the user of the electronic device according to a predetermined script or completely independently using any appropriate form of artificial intelligence, such as deep learning or natural language processing. In some embodiments, a chatbot communicates with a user of an electronic device by posing questions to the user to gather emergency data or information; also see [0073]; in some embodiments, the EMS can pose questions to the user of the communication device regarding the user's location or the nature of the user's emergency; the messages 304 are transmitted to the communication device 310 according to a predetermined script; the sequence of messages transmitted to the user during the autonomous communication session 303 is adapted dynamically based on responses received from the user. For example, in some embodiments, if the user indicates that they are in a life-threatening situation, the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by prompting the user to find a safer environment, if possible. If the user indicates that they are not in a life-threatening situation, the autonomous communication session 303 may respond by asking the user for more details regarding the emergency, as depicted in FIG. 5. In some embodiments, the predetermined script or sequence of messages is trained or generated using machine learning algorithms; also see [0007]-[0008]; also see [0021]; determining the emergency category is based at least in part on the emergency information received through the interface of the electronic device and at least in part on the nature of the emergency).
Regarding claim 20, Martin (modified by Reddy) discloses the system of claim 19, as set forth above. In addition, Martin further discloses wherein the additional information is sent to a PSAP operator (see [0004]-[0005] and [0066]; example of emergency service provider (ESP) are a public safety answering point (PSAP), or an emergency dispatch center; also see [0012]; identifying the user potentially affected by the emergency comprises: a) detecting an emergency call made from the communication device to the emergency service provider (ESP); and b) determining that the ESP is unable to respond to the emergency call, wherein the emergency response message is transmitted to the communication device in response to determining that the ESP is unable to respond to the emergency call; also see [0177]-[0178] & [0182]; smart speaker begins dialing 9-1-1. Simultaneously, the smart speaker sends an emergency alert to the emergency management system (EMS); also see [0113]; A call taker at the PSAP then answers the emergency call; also see [0178]; EMS responds with “Your emergency has been noted and delivered to your local PSAP; also see [0179]; The EMS then shares the location and nature of Darius' emergency with the local PSAP; also see [0183]; The EMS also transmits the description of Caroline's emergency her local PSAP; Just after Caroline finishes tending to her wound according to the safety recommendation, her 9-1-1 call is picked up by a call taker at the local PSAP).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (hereinafter, Martin, US 20200274962 A1) in view of Reddy, US 20190068784 A1) in view of Arnold et al. (hereinafter, ARNOLD, WO 2020028661 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Martin (modified by Reddy) discloses the method of claim 9, as set forth above. Martin (modified by Reddy) does not explicitly disclose wherein communications classified as not related to PSAP services include accidental communications, prank communications, and spam communications.
However, in an analogous art, Arnold discloses wherein communications classified as not related to PSAP services include accidental communications, prank communications, and spam communications (see [0042]; identifying a type of incident based on the one or more received calls from a communication device 105; For example, … when the call is a prank call or an accidental call; also see [0058]; determine when the call is a spam or telemarketing number… blacklisted callers for example, civilians who repetitiously prank call the command center).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Arnold with Martin and Reddy so that the communications classified as not related to PSAP services include accidental communications, prank communications, and spam communications.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated for optimizing a call queue at a dispatch center (Arnold: see Abstract and [0019]).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin et al. (hereinafter, Martin, US 20200274962 A1) in view of Reddy, US 20190068784 A1) in view of Balthasar et al. (hereinafter, Balthasar, US 20140094134 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Martin (modified by Reddy) discloses the system of claim 15, as set forth above. Martin (modified by Reddy) does not explicitly disclose wherein the communication analysis engine includes a translation engine to translate the communication to a preferred language of a PSAP operator.
However, in an analogous art, Balthasar disclose wherein the communication analysis engine includes a translation engine to translate the communication to a preferred language of a PSAP operator (see [0019]; translation capabilities to instantly translate the call from one language to another. For example, a call in French can be instantly translated into English and, similarly, any dialogue taken place between the caller and the operator may be translated and copies in two or more languages (e.g., French, Spanish and English) may be maintained for reference and other relevant purposes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Balthasar with Martin and Reddy so that the communication analysis engine includes a translation engine to translate the communication to a preferred language of a PSAP operator.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to facilitate dynamic, automated and prioritized call control to triage and efficiently handle calls, such as emergency calls (Balthasar: [0013]).
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burt (US 20150312739 A1) discloses the civilian user may first be placed in communication with an intermediary ES user, such as an emergency services operator (i.e., 9-1-1 operator) before facilitating the eventual establishment of a communications link.
STAWISZYNSKI et al. (US 20210385638 A1) teaches device, system and method for modifying actions associated with an emergency call.
MEHTA et al. (US 20160316493 A1) teaches efficient emergency calling.
Sennett et al. (US 8489060 B2) discloses emergency alert system instructional media.
Kempel (US 11653192 B2) teaches generating emergency response.
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 SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453
Prosecution Insights