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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite “computer-readable medium”.
The term “media” or “medium” is not necessarily considered to limit a media claim to non-transitory embodiments because many disclosures conflate media and signals. The media may include “carrier wave” as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The examiner presumes for the sake of examination that the term “computer readable media" or “computer readable medium" comprises both transitory and non-transitory medium. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed computer readable media/medium that covers signal per se, claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media”, 1351 OG 212, February 23, 2010.
A claim drawn to such claimed computer readable media/medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid the rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claimed “computer readable media” or “computer readable medium”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the emergency detail response" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the emergency detail response" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the emergency detail response" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the emergency detail response" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the emergency detail response" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the emergency detail response" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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, 3, 8, 10, 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4, 7, 11, 14, 18 of copending Application No. 18/627,076 (US Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0318013, hereinafter referred to as Appl. ‘076). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in the claim 1 of the present invention is functionally similar to claim 4 of Appl. ‘076. For example, claim 1 of the present invention recites “receiving a call;” similar to “receiving a call;” as recited in claim 4 of Appl. ‘076; claim 1 of the present invention recites “determining whether the call is legitimate;” functionally similar to “determining whether an automatic number identification of the call is valid” as recited in claim 4 of Appl. ‘076; and claim 1 of the present invention recites “routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP)” functionally similar to but broader than “routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP), if it is determined that the ANI of the call is valid” as recited in claim 4 of Appl. ‘076.
Claim 3, rejected against claim 4 of Appl. ‘076 modified by claim 7 of Appl. ‘076.
Claim 8, of the present invention is functionally similar to claim 11 of Appl. ‘076. For example, claim 8 of the present invention recites “receive a call;” similar to “receive a call;” as recited in claim 11 of Appl. ‘076; claim 8 of the present invention recites “perform a determination whether the call is legitimate;” functionally similar to “determine whether an automatic number identification of the call is valid” as recited in claim 11 of Appl. ‘076; and claim 8 of the present invention recites “perform a routing of the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP)” functionally similar to but broader than “at least route the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP), if it is determined that the ANI of the call is valid” as recited in claim 11 of Appl. ‘076.
Claim 10, rejected against claim 11 of Appl. ‘076 modified by claim 14 of Appl. ‘076.
Claim 15, of the present invention is functionally similar to claim 18 of Appl. ‘076. For example, claim 15 of the present invention recites “receiving a call;” similar to “receiving a call;” as recited in claim 18 of Appl. ‘076; claim 15 of the present invention recites “determining whether the call is legitimate;” functionally similar to “determining whether an automatic number identification of the call is valid” as recited in claim 18 of Appl. ‘076; and claim 15 of the present invention recites “routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP)” functionally similar to but broader than “routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP), if it is determined that the ANI of the call is valid” as recited in claim 18 of Appl. ‘076.
This is a provisional nonstatutory 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goswami (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0083902).
Regarding claim 1, Goswami teaches a method implemented by a system, the method comprising:
receiving a call (Paragraphs 0039, 0048, 0051);
determining whether the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0039, 0043-0044, 0048, 0051 prank call determination); and
routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0049) (Paragraphs 0022, 0030-0054 for complete details).
Regarding claim 2, Goswami teaches transmitting an emergency detail request, wherein the determining is at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received (Paragraphs 0039, 0043-0044, 0048, 0051 transmit request to prank call server and determination based on its response).
Regarding claim 3, Goswami teaches wherein the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower (Paragraph 0015 “a geographic location for an originating communication device may alternatively be determined based upon the location of a base station servicing a corresponding E911 call. A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 4, Goswami teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a location of an emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the emergency (Paragraph 0015 “A geographic location may be determined for an originating communication device via an active location service (e.g. GPS) residing on the calling handset.” and “A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 6, Goswami teaches releasing the call, if the determining determines that the call is not legitimate (Paragraphs 0022, 0033, 0040, 0046, 0049, 0051 dropping prank calls).
Regarding claim 7, Goswami teaches recording in a computer-aided dispatch log a disposition of the call, at least in part based on the determining (Paragraphs 0032-0033, 0036-0037, 0040, 0044-0045, 0048-0049, 0051 logging calls for audit and/or future filtering).
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ehrlich (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0286484).
Regarding claim 1, Ehrlich teaches a method implemented by a system, the method comprising:
receiving a call (Paragraphs 0038-0040 emergency call handling and routing server receiving a call);
determining whether the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0041-0047, 0053); and
routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Paragraphs 0048-0053 routing to emergency call-taker terminal, i.e. 0012, 0019 to PSAP) (Paragraphs 0018-0036, 0054 for additional details).
Regarding claim 2, Ehrlich teaches transmitting an emergency detail request, wherein the determining is at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received (Paragraphs 0043-0047, 0049-0053 determination based on various requests and received response or not).
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.
Claims 8-11, 13-18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Goswami (US Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0083902).
Regarding claim 8, Goswami teaches a system (Fig. 1), comprising: at least one network interface (obviously multiple interfaces among server, database and PSAP); and at least one processor configured (obviously server, database and PSAP implemented with processor and memory as was well known in the art), with the at least one network interface, to cause the system (Paragraphs 0030-0037) to at least
receive a call (Paragraphs 0039, 0048, 0051);
perform a determination whether the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0039, 0043-0044, 0048, 0051 prank call determination); and
perform a routing of the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0049) (Paragraphs 0022, 0030-0054 for complete details).
Goswami does not explicitly teach network interface and processor configured with the at least one network interface. However, Goswami teaches subscriber wireless device receiving E911 service using network-based service (Paragraphs 0017-0018 i.e. not only well known in the art but also known to a general user of wireless phone as service using wireless network interface) using server, database etc. (Paragraphs 0035-0037 well known in the art implemented with stored program control processors).
Regarding claim 9, Goswami teaches wherein to cause the system to at least transmit an emergency detail request, and the determination is at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received (Paragraphs 0039, 0043-0044, 0048, 0051 transmit request to prank call server and determination based on its response).
Regarding claim 10, Goswami teaches wherein the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower (Paragraph 0015 “a geographic location for an originating communication device may alternatively be determined based upon the location of a base station servicing a corresponding E911 call. A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 11, Goswami teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a location of an emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the emergency (Paragraph 0015 “A geographic location may be determined for an originating communication device via an active location service (e.g. GPS) residing on the calling handset.” and “A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 13, Goswami teaches wherein to cause the system to at least release the call, if the determination determines that the call is not legitimate (Paragraphs 0022, 0033, 0040, 0046, 0049, 0051 dropping prank calls).
Regarding claim 14, Goswami teaches wherein to cause the system to at least record in a computer-aided dispatch log a disposition of the call, at least in part based on the determination (Paragraphs 0032-0033, 0036-0037, 0040, 0044-0045, 0048-0049, 0051 logging calls for audit and/or future filtering).
Regarding claim 15, Goswami teaches a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program that, when executed by a system including at least one processor, causes the system (obviously server, database and PSAP implemented with processor executing program encoded in memory as was well known in the art) (Paragraphs 0030-0037) to perform operations comprising:
receiving a call (Paragraphs 0039, 0048, 0051);
determining whether the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0039, 0043-0044, 0048, 0051 prank call determination); and
routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Paragraphs 0041, 0043, 0049) (Paragraphs 0022, 0030-0054 for complete details).
Goswami does not explicitly teach network interface and processor configured with the at least one network interface. However, Goswami teaches subscriber wireless device receiving E911 service using network-based service (Paragraphs 0017-0018 i.e. not only well known in the art but also known to a general user of wireless phone as service using wireless network interface) using server, database etc. (Paragraphs 0035-0037 well known in the art implemented with stored program control processors).
Regarding claim 16, Goswami teaches transmitting an emergency detail request, wherein the determining is at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received (Paragraphs 0039, 0043-0044, 0048, 0051 transmit request to prank call server and determination based on its response).
Regarding claim 17, Goswami teaches wherein the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower (Paragraph 0015 “a geographic location for an originating communication device may alternatively be determined based upon the location of a base station servicing a corresponding E911 call. A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 18, Goswami teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a location of an emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the emergency (Paragraph 0015 “A geographic location may be determined for an originating communication device via an active location service (e.g. GPS) residing on the calling handset.” and “A location for an originating communication device is conventionally used to route an E911 call to an appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (i.e. a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) within closest geographic proximity to an originating communication device)” (emphasis added).).
Regarding claim 20, Goswami teaches releasing the call, if the determining determines that the call is not legitimate (Paragraphs 0022, 0033, 0040, 0046, 0049, 0051 dropping prank calls).
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami as applied to claims 3, 10, 17 above, and further in view of Dizengof (US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0301017).
Regarding claim 5, Goswami does not teach the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency:
However, in the similar field, Dizengof teaches the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency (Paragraphs 0045-0046, 0051-0053, 0056-0057, 0061, 0074, 0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami to include the emergency detail response indicating a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency as taught by Dizengof in order to “determine the type of the emergency event and optionally its characteristics thus improving the routing accuracy and hence reducing the response time to the incoming emergency calls” (Dizengof, Paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 12, Goswami does not teach the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency:
However, in the similar field, Dizengof teaches the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency (Paragraphs 0045-0046, 0051-0053, 0056-0057, 0061, 0074, 0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami to include the emergency detail response indicating a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency as taught by Dizengof in order to “determine the type of the emergency event and optionally its characteristics thus improving the routing accuracy and hence reducing the response time to the incoming emergency calls” (Dizengof, Paragraph 0063).
Regarding claim 19, Goswami does not teach the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency:
However, in the similar field, Dizengof teaches the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency (Paragraphs 0045-0046, 0051-0053, 0056-0057, 0061, 0074, 0123).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Goswami to include the emergency detail response indicating a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency as taught by Dizengof in order to “determine the type of the emergency event and optionally its characteristics thus improving the routing accuracy and hence reducing the response time to the incoming emergency calls” (Dizengof, Paragraph 0063).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ehrlich (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0286484) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Ehrlich teaches releasing the call, if the determining determines that the call is not legitimate (Paragraphs 0053-0054 judging prank call or not and better manage callers, i.e. it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to disconnect/ release call instead of wasting time on illegitimate call.).
Claims 8-9, 13, 15-16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ehrlich (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0286484).
Regarding claim 8, Ehrlich teaches a system (Figs. 1-2), comprising: at least one network interface; and at least one processor configured (various servers as well known in the art), with the at least one network interface (Fig. 2 items 2, 3, 10a, 10b multiple interfaces between components of the system), to cause the system to at least
receive a call (Paragraphs 0038-0040 emergency call handling and routing server receiving a call);
perform a determination whether the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0041-0047, 0053); and
perform a routing of the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Paragraphs .0048-0053 routing to emergency call-taker terminal, i.e. 0012, 0019 to PSAP) (Paragraphs 0018-0036, 0054 for additional details).
Ehrlich does not explicitly teach network interface and processor configured with the at least one network interface. However, Ehrlich teaches network based PSAP call center supported by network components i.e. server, database etc. (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0026-0027 well known in the art implemented with stored program control processors connected over network via their respective network interfaces).
Regarding claim 9, Ehrlich teaches to cause the system to at least transmit an emergency detail request, and the determination is at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received (Paragraphs 0043-0047, 0049-0053 determination based on various requests and received response or not).
Regarding claim 13, Ehrlich teaches to cause the system to at least release the call, if the determination determines that the call is not legitimate (Paragraphs 0053-0054 judging prank call or not and better manage callers, i.e. it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to disconnect/ release call instead of wasting time on illegitimate call.).
Regarding claim 15, Ehrlich teaches a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program that, when executed by a system including at least one processor, causes the system (Figs. 1-2 many components using stored computer program systems as was well known in the art) to perform operations comprising:
receiving a call (Paragraphs 0038-0040 emergency call handling and routing server receiving a call);
determining whether the call is legitimate (Paragraphs 0041-0047, 0053); and
routing the call to a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Paragraphs .0048-0053 routing to emergency call-taker terminal, i.e. 0012, 0019 to PSAP) (Paragraphs 0018-0036, 0054 for additional details).
Ehrlich does not explicitly teach network interface and processor configured with the at least one network interface. However, Ehrlich teaches network based PSAP call center supported by network components i.e. server, database etc. (Fig. 1, Paragraphs 0026-0027 well known in the art implemented with stored program control processors connected over network via their respective network interfaces).
Regarding claim 16, Ehrlich teaches transmitting an emergency detail request, wherein the determining is at least in part based on whether an emergency detail response to the emergency detail request is received (Paragraphs 0043-0047, 0049-0053 determination based on various requests and received response or not).
Regarding claim 20, Ehrlich teaches releasing the call, if the determining determines that the call is not legitimate (Paragraphs 0053-0054 judging prank call or not and better manage callers, i.e. it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to disconnect/ release call instead of wasting time on illegitimate call.).
Claims 3-4, 7, 10-11, 14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlich as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Bhogal (US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0192964).
Regarding claim 3, Ehrlich does not teach the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower.
However, in the similar field, Bhogal teaches the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower (Paragraphs 0003-0004).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ehrlich to include call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower as taught by Bhogal in order to “use the location of the cell-tower antenna the mobile phone is using, and route the call to the PSAP nearest the tower” (Bhogal, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 4, Bhogal teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a location of an emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the emergency (Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Regarding claim 7, Ehrlich teaches recording in a computer-aided dispatch log a disposition of the call, at least in part based on the determining (Paragraph 0054 provide feedback on recent activity but Ehrlich does not explicitly indicate it as recording in a dispatch log a disposition of the call
However, in the similar field, Bhogal teaches recording in a dispatch log a disposition of the call (Paragraphs 0003-0004, 0027, 0031-0035).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ehrlich to include recording in a dispatch log a disposition of the call as taught by Bhogal so that “Incident reports may be forwarded to a police dispatcher and may be searched by server computer system 102” (Bhogal, Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 10, Ehrlich does not teach the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower.
However, in the similar field, Bhogal teaches the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower (Paragraphs 0003-0004).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ehrlich to include call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower as taught by Bhogal in order to “use the location of the cell-tower antenna the mobile phone is using, and route the call to the PSAP nearest the tower” (Bhogal, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 11, Bhogal teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a location of an emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the emergency (Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Regarding claim 14, Ehrlich teaches recording in a computer-aided dispatch log a disposition of the call, at least in part based on the determining (Paragraph 0054 provide feedback on recent activity but Ehrlich does not explicitly indicate it as recording in a dispatch log a disposition of the call
However, in the similar field, Bhogal teaches recording in a dispatch log a disposition of the call (Paragraphs 0003-0004, 0027, 0031-0035).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ehrlich to include recording in a dispatch log a disposition of the call as taught by Bhogal so that “Incident reports may be forwarded to a police dispatcher and may be searched by server computer system 102” (Bhogal, Paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 17, Ehrlich does not teach the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower.
However, in the similar field, Bhogal teaches the call includes call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower (Paragraphs 0003-0004).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ehrlich to include call detail information indicating a location of a cellular tower, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the cellular tower as taught by Bhogal in order to “use the location of the cell-tower antenna the mobile phone is using, and route the call to the PSAP nearest the tower” (Bhogal, Paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 18, Bhogal teaches wherein the emergency detail response indicates a location of an emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the location of the emergency (Paragraphs 0003-0004).
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrlich and Bhogal as applied to claims 3, 10, 17 above, and further in view of Cabanas (US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0066525).
Regarding claim 5, Ehrlich and Bhogal do not teach the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency:
However, in the similar field, Cabanas teaches the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency (Paragraphs 0007, 0029, 0038-0042, 0044, 0068, 0078-0080, 0087, 0134-0139, 0149-0150 routing to emergency response device based on type of emergency).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ehrlich and Bhogal to include the emergency detail response indicating a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency as taught by Cabanas so that “ERDP 510 determines, based on the type of the emergency, at least one emergency response device of the plurality of emergency response devices for responding to the emergency” (Cabanas, Paragraph 0137).
Regarding claim 12, Ehrlich and Bhogal do not teach the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency:
However, in the similar field, Cabanas teaches the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency (Paragraphs 0007, 0029, 0038-0042, 0044, 0068, 0078-0080, 0087, 0134-0139, 0149-0150 routing to emergency response device based on type of emergency).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ehrlich and Bhogal to include the emergency detail response indicating a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency as taught by Cabanas so that “ERDP 510 determines, based on the type of the emergency, at least one emergency response device of the plurality of emergency response devices for responding to the emergency” (Cabanas, Paragraph 0137).
Regarding claim 19, Ehrlich and Bhogal do not teach the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency:
However, in the similar field, Cabanas teaches the emergency detail response indicates a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency (Paragraphs 0007, 0029, 0038-0042, 0044, 0068, 0078-0080, 0087, 0134-0139, 0149-0150 routing to emergency response device based on type of emergency).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to modify Ehrlich and Bhogal to include the emergency detail response indicating a type of emergency, and the routing is performed, at least in part based on the type of emergency as taught by Cabanas so that “ERDP 510 determines, based on the type of the emergency, at least one emergency response device of the plurality of emergency response devices for responding to the emergency” (Cabanas, Paragraph 0137).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEMANT PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8620. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:30 PM EST.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached at 571-272-7547. 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.
HEMANT PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/HEMANT S PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694