DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations: ‘receiving, with a server, call data that is directed to an ESP from a central station and that is redirected to the server from the ESP’ are not clear. It is not clear how call data is both received at a server and redirected to the server. It is not clear where call data came from. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations: ‘categorizing content of the call data by applying the call data to an artificial intelligence (AI) model with one or more AI model prompts, wherein categories of the content includes an address and an alert type’ are not clear. It is not clear the function of the AI model prompts and how categories of the content includes an address and alert type. There is no definition of what an address means in the context of an alarm-reporting telephone call. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations: ‘maintaining a plurality of prompts, wherein each of the plurality of prompts corresponds with at least one of the categories; and providing each of the plurality of prompts to the central station with an interactive voice response (IVR) system to align the content of the call data with the categories’ are not clear. It is not clear how a plurality of prompts corresponds to at least one of the categories. It is not clear how an IVR with prompts aligns with categories and how this relates to generating alert data from alarm-reporting telephone calls. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations: ‘providing the alert data to the ESP while the categories of the alert data are incomplete; and continuing to provide the ones of the plurality of prompts to receive responses in the call data that are responsive to the categories of the alert data that are incomplete’ are not clear. It is not clear how to provide alert data while the alert data is incomplete and it is not clear what responses are in the call data that are responsive to the categories of the alert data that are incomplete. How can alert data be incomplete? Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations: ‘completing the alert data with each of the categories, prior to providing the alert data to the ESP’ are not clear. It is not clear how the alert data is completed for each category. Appropriate action is required.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations: ‘an emergency management system (EMS) communicatively coupled to the ESP system and operable to populate at least part of the queue of alerts with the alert data, wherein the EMS
includes an automated interview system operable to receive calls made from the first CHE to the
second CHE on the alarm-reporting telephone number, wherein the automated interview system
is operable to provide prompts and receive responses in an interview of a central station
telecommunicator, wherein the automated interview system is operable to convert the responses into the alert data, wherein the EMS includes a data structure that associates the alert data with an alert ID, wherein the EMS provides the alert data to the emergency response application of the ESP system’ are not clear. It is not clear what ‘operable to populate at least part of the queue of alerts with the alert data’. It is not clear what the alert data is and how to populate partially. It is not clear how to convert responses into alert data when alert data has not been defined in the claim. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the alert data" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations: ‘the automated interview system applies at least some of the responses to the AI model to associate content of the responses with one or more categories for the alert data’ are not clear. It is not clear how to apply at least some of the responses and how categories and alert data are associated. Further, there is no explanation in how content of the responses is associated with categories for alert data. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitations: ‘the automated interview system applies at least some of the responses to the AI model determine a subsequent prompt to provide in the interview’ are not clear. It is not clear how to apply at least some of the responses to determine a subsequent prompt. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitations: ‘wherein the automated interview system provides the at least one of the response to an AI model to extract the address from the at least one of the responses’ are not clear. This limitation does not make sense in how the AI model extracts the address from the at least one of the responses. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitations: ‘wherein an order of the prompts is at least partially determined using an artificial intelligence (AI) model’ and ‘providing at least some of the responses to the prompts in the call data to the AI model to characterize content of the least some of the responses’ are not clear. This limitation does not make sense in how the order of prompts are partially determined occurs. It is not clear the flow of providing at least some of the responses to the prompts in the call data to the AI model to characterize content of the least some of the responses. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitations: ‘applying the caller context data to the AI model with the responses to at least partially prioritize the order of the prompts based on the caller context data’ are not clear. This limitation does not make sense in how the partially prioritizing occurs. It is not clear the flow of partially prioritizing the order of the prompts based on the caller context data. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitations: ‘redirecting a call to an ESP from a central station, to an emergency management system’ are not clear. This limitation does not make sense in how the redirection occurs. It is not clear the flow of the incoming call to the ESP and how a central station redirects said incoming call to an emergency management system. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 recites: ‘report the central station’. This should be recited: ‘report to the central station’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitations: ‘model determine’ does not make sense. This should be recited ‘model to determine’. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitations: ‘the at least one of the response’ in line 3 does not make sense. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitations: ‘redirecting a call to an ESP from a central station, to an emergency management system’. This is not clearly defined. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 , 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by International Publication: WO 2015/189763A1 by Pauws et al, hereinafter Pauws.
Regarding claim 1, Pauws discloses a method of generating alert data from alarm-reporting telephone calls (page 8, lines 11-20) made to an
emergency service provider (ESP) (i.e. PERS call center) (page 5, lines 1-5; page 6, lines 5-11; page 8, lines 11-18), comprising:
receiving, with a server (i.e. PERS server system), call data that is directed to an ESP from a central station (i.e. server computer) and that is redirected to the server from the ESP (page 8, line 29 – page 9, line 31);
categorizing content of the call data (i.e. ED risk) by applying the call data to an artificial intelligence (AI) model (i.e. ED risk estimation module) with one or more AI model prompts (page 15, line 10 – page 16, line 21), wherein categories of the content includes an address and an alert type (page 12, line 15 – page 13, line 11; page 16, line 7 – page 17, line 6);
validating the address by sending the address to an address validation service (page 8, lines 23-28; page 15, lines 25-27);
appending the address (i.e. phone number or other identification of incoming call; page 9, lines 2-31) and the alert type (i.e. type of call: check-in call, accidental call, non-emergency call or call that does not require emergency dispatch (ED), medically related call) to a data structure (i.e. subscriber’s profile), wherein the address and alert type are alert data;
associating the alert data with an alert identifier (ID) (i.e. highlighted format) in the data structure (page 16, lines 7-19); and
providing the alert data to an emergency response application (i.e. displayed ED risk prediction) to allow a dispatcher (i.e. call center operator) at the ESP to dispatch emergency responders (i.e. ED initiation; page 5, lines 21-28) based on the alert data (i.e. ED risk) (page 16, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 2, the method of claim 1, Pauws further comprising:
maintaining a plurality of prompts, wherein each of the plurality of prompts corresponds
with at least one of the categories (i.e. enabling the call center operator to take into account the ED risk in assisting callers) (page 16, lines 20-34); and
providing each of the plurality of prompts to the central station with an interactive voice
response (IVR) system to align the content of the call data with the categories (i.e. updating EMR data for each subscriber) (page 16, line 33 – page 17, line 2).
Regarding claim 3, Pauws discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
providing the alert data to the ESP while the categories of the alert data are incomplete;
and continuing to provide the ones of the plurality of prompts to receive responses in the call
data that are responsive to the categories of the alert data that are incomplete (i.e. updating EMR data for each subscriber) (page 16, line 33 – page 17, line 2).
Regarding claim 4, Pauws discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
completing the alert data with each of the categories, prior to providing the alert data to
the ESP (page 15, lines 10-21; page 16, lines 33-34).
Regarding claim 5, Pauws discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
training the AI model to support one or more particular types of ESP (page 10, lines 24-33), wherein the one or
more particular types of ESP include: a 9-1-1 call center, a railway call center, or an alarm
monitoring central station (i.e. Personal Emergency Response System; page 5, lines 2-10).
Regarding claim 6, Pauws discloses the method of claim 5, wherein training the Al model to support the one or more particular types of ESP includes training the AI model with questions, answers, training manuals, lessons learned, case studies, and historical data associated with the one or more particular types of ESP (page 10, lines 24-33).
Regarding claim 7, Pauws discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
displaying the alert data in a first user interface queue in the emergency response
application, wherein the alert data is representative of call to a non-emergency number (i.e. check-in call or non-emergency call) at the ESP; and displaying emergency call data a second user interface queue in the emergency response application, wherein the emergency call data is representative of calls (i.e. medically related calls) to an emergency number at the ESP (page 10, lines 9-23; page 16, lines 20-32).
Regarding claim 9, Pauws discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving supplemental mobile device information from a third-party server; and
providing the supplemental mobile device information to the emergency response
application to supplement primary mobile device information displayed by the emergency
response application (page 19, lines 18-25; page 20, lines 14-19).
Regarding claim 10, Pauws discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, with the server, an alert report from the emergency response application,
wherein the emergency response application receives the alert report from an emergency
responder for a particular alert; and
providing the alert report the central station to allow the central station to a status of the
particular alert based on the alert report (page 15, lines 13-14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 Form.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300 (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or call:
(571) 272-2600 (for customer service assistance)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HASHEM whose telephone number is 571-272-7542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday, 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/LISA HASHEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Prosecution Insights