Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 03/16/2026. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because of the following:
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues on pages 6-7 that neither Biage or Piett teaches or suggests optimizing the clustering of the calls as well as an optimization hierarchy of the search key. This argument is not relevant. It is because, the applicant did not claim limitation. Instead, the applicant claims clustering the calls. Biage teaches this limitation (see paragraphs 0020-0022, 0027).
Thus, the rejection of the claim will remain.
.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biage et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0078943) in view of Piett et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0337831).
Regarding claims 1, 11, with respect to Figures 1-8, Biage teaches a method for clustering emergency calls, the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a Public Safety Answering Point, PSAP, a new emergency event from a communication network 120/130 in Fig.1 [i.e., Emergency Service Routing Proxy, ESRP] (abstract; fig.1, 2, 5-8; paragraphs 0020-0022, 0027);
extracting, by an application, identification information/location information [i.e., key data] regarding the new emergency event (fig.1, 2, 5-8; paragraphs 0020, 0022, 0027);
preparing, by the application, a search key for clustering incoming calls belonging to the same event, based on the key data extracted in the previous step (fig. 5-8; paragraphs 0020-0022, 0027);
checking, by the application, whether a matching event is in a storage device/database [i.e., cluster storage], based on the extracted key data of the incoming event and key data of previously reported events in the cluster storage (fig.1, 2, 5-8; paragraphs 0020-0027);
updating [i.e., adding], by the application, further key data into the cluster storage, in case a matching event is in the cluster storage (fig. 5-8; paragraphs 0020-0022, 0027); and
ending the method (fig.5-8; paragraphs 0020, 0022, 0025-0027).
However, Biage does not specifically teach sending, by the application, a personalized message to the emergency caller, using the available key data of the matching event in the cluster storage. Piett teaches sending, by the application, an audio, video, or text-based message [i.e., personalized message] to the emergency caller, using the available key data of the matching event in the cluster storage (paragraph 0086). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Biage to incorporate the feature of sending, by the application, a personalized message to the emergency caller, using the available key data of the matching event in the cluster storage in Biage’s invention as taught by Piett. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to provide proper action about an emergency to an emergency caller.
Regarding claim 2, Biage teaches wherein in case no matching event is in the cluster storage, the method further comprises: adding, by the application, an abandoned event to the abandoned events without clustering (paragraph 0040); and
ending the method (fig.5-8; paragraphs 0020, 0022, 0025-0027).
However, Biage does not specifically teach optimizing, by the application, the search key, in case no matching event is in the cluster storage and adding, by the application, an abandoned event to the abandoned events without clustering, in case the optimization is not successful. Piett teaches optimizing, by the application, the search key, in case no matching event is in the cluster storage; updating [i.e., adding], by the application, a previously processed for the emergency call [i.e., abandoned event to the abandoned events] without clustering, in case the optimization is not successful (paragraphs 0072, 0086, 0087). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Biage to incorporate the feature of optimizing, by the application, the search key, in case no matching event is in the cluster storage and adding, by the application, an abandoned event to the abandoned events without clustering, in case the optimization is not successful in Biage’s invention as taught by Piett. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to update the storage for a new emergency call so that a future emergency call can be taken care of efficiently.
Regarding claim 3, Biage teaches wherein in case the optimization of the search key is not successful, the method further comprises:
moving, by the application, the incoming event to the call handling system (paragraphs 0020-0022, 0027);
monitoring, by the application, a Real-Time-Protocol, RTP, streaming, and extracting, by the application, event key words (paragraphs 0020-0022, 0027);
updating, by the application, the entry into the cluster storage with the event key words (paragraphs 0020-0022, 0027); and
ending the method (fig.5-8; paragraphs 0020, 0022, 0025-0027).
However, Biage does not specifically teach creating, by the application, a new entry of an incoming event into the cluster based on the previously prepared search key. Piett teaches creating, by the application, a new entry of an incoming event into the cluster based on the previously prepared search key (paragraphs 0072, 0086, 0087). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Biage to incorporate the feature of creating, by the application, a new entry of an incoming event into the cluster based on the previously prepared search key in Biage’s invention as taught by Piett. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to update the storage for a new emergency call so that a future emergency call can be taken care of efficiently.
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Biage teaches updating [i.e., adding], by the application, further key data into the cluster storage, in case a matching event is in the cluster storage (fig.1, 2, 5-8; paragraphs 0020-0022, 0027).
Regarding claim 6, Biage teaches wherein the application is an entity of the emergency system, a part of the Public Safety Answering Point, PSAP, and/or designed as a bot and/or as an Interactive Voice Responder, IVR, and/or the application can be running as an external component where the PSAP has access (paragraphs 0003, 0019-0020).
Regarding claim 7, Biage teaches wherein the key data are selected from the group comprising time, location locX and other parameters like ADR Y and ADR Z (paragraphs 0014, 0024).
Regarding claim 8, Biage teaches wherein the parameters ADR Y and ADR Z are selected from Uniform Resource Name, URN, service SOS sub-service, an emergency call data service info-element, or an emergency call data comment-element (paragraphs 0014, 0024).
Regarding claim 9, Biage teaches wherein the clustering is based on a location locX (paragraphs 0014, 0023, 0024). However, Biage does not specifically teach a location locX within a time-window t. Piett teaches a location locX within a time-window t (paragraph 0072). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Biage to incorporate the feature of a location locX within a time-window t in Biage’s invention as taught by Piett. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to compare the estimated accuracy of the most recent and prior location updates efficiently.
Regarding claim 10, Biage does not specifically teach wherein the key data are stored at corresponding optimization levels, preferably wherein there are up to three optimization levels. Piett teaches wherein the key data are stored at corresponding optimization levels, preferably wherein there are up to three optimization levels (paragraph 0072) (Note; The optimization algorithm compares the most recent location received from the calling device to any location data that may have been previously processed for the emergency call and this comparison considers a number of factors, including but not limited to the time elapsed between location updates, a comparison the of estimated accuracy of the most recent and prior location updates, and the horizontal or vertical distance between the most current location result and previously reported device locations. Thus, it is clear that there might three or more previously reported device locations with which the most recent location can be compared. Therefore, there should have three optimization levels.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Biage to incorporate the feature of wherein the key data are stored at corresponding optimization levels, preferably wherein there are up to three optimization levels in Biage’s invention as taught by Piett. The motivation for the modification is to do so in order to compare the estimated accuracy of the most recent and prior location updates efficiently.
Regarding claim 12, Biage teaches wherein the system comprises an Emergency Service Routing Proxy, ESRP, an application, a Public Safety Answering Point, PSAP and a cluster storage (fig.1, 2; paragraphs 0003, 0020-0027).
Regarding claim 13, Biage teaches wherein the application is an entity of the emergency system, a part of the Public Safety Answering Point, PSAP, or another component of the network system, and/or designed as a bot and/or as an Interactive Voice Responder, IVR and/or the application can be running as an external component where the PSAP has access (fig.1, 2; paragraphs 0003, 0020-0027).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biage et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0078943) in view of Piett et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0337831) further in view of Spix et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,195,676).
Regarding claim 5, Biage does not specifically teach wherein optimizing represents a tree diagram of the emergency data and their connection, wherein the search key starts from a corresponding optimization level based on the key data extracted from a new emergency call. Piett teaches wherein the search key starts from a corresponding optimization level based on the key data extracted from a new emergency call (paragraphs 0072, 0086, 0087) whereas Spix teaches wherein optimizing represents a tree diagram of the data and their connection (fig.28a-28e, 29a; col.13, lines 59-62); whereas Examiner takes an official notice that wherein a tree diagram of the emergency data is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Biage to incorporate the feature of wherein optimizing represents a tree diagram of the emergency data and their connection, wherein the search key starts from a corresponding optimization level based on the key data extracted from a new emergency call in Biage’s invention in order to search emergency call through a tree structure efficiently.
Regarding claim 14, Biage teaches wherein the cluster storage contains the key data information (paragraphs 0020-0022, 0027). However, Biage does not specifically teach the data information in a node-tree architecture. Spix teaches the data information in a node-tree architecture (fig.28a-28e, 29a; col.13, lines 59-62). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Biage to incorporate the feature of the data information in a node-tree architecture in Biage’s invention in order to search data through a node-tree architecture efficiently.
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 FAN S TSANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7547. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FAN TSANG can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/
MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2694
May 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights