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 § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz (US 20180191786) in view of Abtin (WO 2013160465A2).
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 18, Kunz teaches a method comprising (see Fig. 5):
receiving, by an Internet Protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) node (Fig. 5, P-CSCF 17 which is an IMS node), a call request (SIP invite) from an inbound roaming user equipment (UE) (UE 3 is roaming in a visiting network VPLMN30)
(Step 3 of Fig. 5 shows P-CSCF 17 receives a call request/SIP Invite from a roaming UE3; [0084] Step 3: “..when the user dials a local emergency number, the UE 3 does not detect it and therefore setups a normal SIP INVITE”);
determining, by the IMS node (P-CSCF 17), that a called party identifier (dialed number) in the call request corresponds to an emergency number,
([0085] Step 4: The P-CSCF 17 compares the dialed number in the destination (‘to’) field of the SIP INVITE header with the local emergency numbers of the VPLMN 30 and detects the non UE detectable emergency call. The local emergency numbers may be compared with the dialed number using any suitable format, typically for example an E-164 number, a tel-URI or a SIP URI or any other format (e.g. URN). Beneficially, therefore, the P-CSCF 17 is able to take action in dependence on whether or not the dialed number is a local emergency number.”)
wherein the emergency number is associated with geographic entity in which a home network of the inbound roaming UE is located ([0078] One problem that may arise with the exemplary procedures of FIG. 4 occurs when the UE 3 is not able to detect the SIP header extensions proposed in step 9 and discards the information about the local emergency numbers at the time of IMS registration. Then, when the user is dialing the local emergency number, the UE is not able to map it to the emergency Uniform Resource Name (URN) and therefore the UE 3 attempts to establish a non UE detectable emergency call by setting up a normal SIP INVITE without the priority/QoS of an emergency session.“ [0084] Step 3: Accordingly, because the UE 3 cannot determine what the local emergency numbers are, when the user dials a local emergency number, the UE 3 does not detect it and therefore setups a normal SIP INVITE”. Note: The UE dialed an emergency number but the UE does not detects it as emergency because the dialed number is “an emergency number” local to the home HPLMN network and not recognizable by the local visiting network. ).
in response to the determining, sending, by the IMS node, the call request to an emergency call session control function (E-CSCF) for routing to a public service answering point (PSAP)
(Fig. 5 Step 7; [0088] Step 7: The P-CSCF 17 may decide on further handling of the emergency call based on local regulations, requirements and operator policies. Possibilities may be: a… [0090] b) select an emergency CSCF (E-CSCF) in the VPLMN 30 based on the retrieved location information from a database and reroute the session to the selected CSCF in the VPLMN 30 including the location information in order to enable the selected CSCF to select the right public-safety answering point (PSAP)”).
Kunz only teaches selecting the right public-safety answering point. Thus, Kunz implicitly but does not explicitly teach routing to a public service answering point (PSAP). For compact prosecution, Abtin is added.
In an analogous art, Abtin teaches “routing to a public service answering point (PSAP) (Page 10 Lines 16-22; “When received by the E-CSCF 13, selection of PSAP and handling of the emergency session request will be managed as currently specified, but now takes into consideration the type of emergency service and additional characteristics included by 20 the P-CSCF 12. This is shown at steps 36 and 37. Finally, at steps 38a and 38b the Request (INVITE) is routed to the selected PSAP, which in this example is the fire department PSAP 17, as originally requested by the UE 10”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kunz's teaching of emergency call to include Abtin's teaching of actually routing the call to the PSAP in order to enable the caller to communicate with the Emergency responder.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Kunz and Abtin teach the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving (Kunz Fig. 5 Step 3 receives SIP invite), the determining (Fig. 5 Step 4), and the sending are performed by a proxy call session control function (P-CSCF) implemented by the IMS node (Kunz Fig. 5 shows all of these steps 3, 4 and 5 occurs at P-CSCF 17).
Regarding claim 3 and 14, Kunz and Abtin teach the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving the emergency number from a roaming partner operating the home network (HPLMN40) of the inbound roaming UE (Kunz [0063] In order to detect the local emergency numbers in the UE 3, the UE 3 may retrieve them from the IP-CAN.. In order to provide the UE 3 with a list of the local emergency numbers in case of the S8 home routed roaming scenario, the HPLMN 40, of this example, can advantageously detect the VPLMN 30 and its local emergency numbers.” [0116] “iii) At the time of incoming SIP REGISTER at the P-CSCF 17, the P-CSCF 17 requesting stored location information from the PCRF 13. [0117] b. Via HSS (Example 3): [0118] iv) Providing the VPLMN ID or MCC via the HSS 11 at IMS Registration here either via I-CSCF 23 or S-CSCF 21 or any other means. [0119] 2) Resolve local emergency numbers in the P-CSCF 17 e.g. by means of a database, using the received location information”; [0063] In order to detect the local emergency numbers in the UE 3, the UE 3 may retrieve them from the IP-CAN.; [0057] Step 6: The PGW 15 performs an IP-Connectivity Access Network (IP-CAN);
In other words, the above paragraphs show that the local emergency numbers are retrieved from IP-CAN which is performed by PGW 15. And PGW is part of the home network HPLMN40 which means the emergency numbers are from HPLMN40.)
Regarding claim 4, Kunz and Abtin teach the method of claim 3, wherein the receiving comprises receiving emergency number as part of an onboarding process (IMS registration) for the roaming partner (HPLMN40)
(Kunz [0116] iii) At the time of incoming SIP REGISTER at the P-CSCF 17, the P-CSCF 17 requesting stored location information from the PCRF 13. [0117] b. Via HSS (Example 3): [0118] iv) Providing the VPLMN ID or MCC via the HSS 11 at IMS Registration here either via I-CSCF 23 or S-CSCF 21 or any other means. [0119] 2) Resolve local emergency numbers in the P-CSCF 17 e.g. by means of a database, using the received location information”
Fig. 6 Step 13 shows the P-CSCF 17 receives the local emergency numbers are collected during the IMS registration in Figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, 10 and 15, Kunz and Abtin teach the method of claim 1, Abtin further teaches, before sending the call request, modifying the call request to include a SOS URI (uniform resource identifier) parameter.
(Page 11 Line 24 - Page 12 line 3, “the P-CSCF 12 is able to determine from the dialed digits 25 that the call relates to a specific emergency sub-service type. In this case the P-CSCF 12 adds an appropriate emergency indication and subservice type in the session establishment request sent to the E-CSCF. The P-CSCF 12, after analyzing the dialed digits, determines that the call should be routed to a particular emergency sub-service, and so the P-CSCF 12 ..inserts 30 the relevant information into the INVITE, including an emergency SOS indication in the URI and an indication that privacy is to be used for the session (if originally requested by the UE 10)... The request is then routed on towards the appropriate PSAP for the identified emergency sub-service as shown in steps 306 to 309b (the same procedure as shown in steps 35 to 38b in Figure 3A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kunz's teaching of emergency call to include Abtin's teaching of adding the SOS indication in the URI to allow special handling by avoiding restrictions and receiving higher priority for the emergency service.
Regarding claim 7 and 17, and Abtin teach the method of claim 1, wherein the emergency number is stored in an emergency number profile database of the IMS node (P-CSCF 17) (Kunz [0119] 2) Resolve local emergency numbers in the P-CSCF 17 e.g. by means of a database, using the received location information”)
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Kunz and Abtin teach the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving another call request from another inbound roaming UE, determining that another called party identifier in the other call request does not correspond to the emergency number or to another emergency number (Kunz [0085] Step 4: The P-CSCF 17 compares the dialed number in the destination (‘to’) field of the SIP INVITE header with the local emergency numbers of the VPLMN 30 and detects the non UE detectable emergency call. The local emergency numbers may be compared with the dialed number using any suitable format, typically for example an E-164 number, a tel-URI or a SIP URI or any other format (e.g. URN). Beneficially, therefore, the P-CSCF 17 is able to take action in dependence on whether or not the dialed number is a local emergency number”; and
responding to the other call request with a rejection
(Kunz [0088] “Step 7: The P-CSCF 17 may decide on further handling of the emergency call based on local regulations, requirements and operator policies. Possibilities may be: [0089] a) reject the SIP INVITE, inform the UE 3 about the emergency call”).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz (US 20180191786) in view of Abtin (WO 2013160465A2) further in view of Yau (US 20210227001)
Regarding claim 6 and 16, Kunz and Abtin teach the method of claim 1, except wherein the inbound roaming UE subscribes to circuit-switched services of a roaming partner operating the home network of the inbound roaming UE, and the inbound roaming UE is connected to the IMS node through a circuit-switched connection.
In an analogous art, Yau teaches roaming UE (Fig. 2; cell phone labeled 12 & LTE) subscribes to circuit-switched services of a roaming partner operating the home network (Fig. 2 shows HPLMN 14 using GMSC 50 which is a core component of circuit switch network) of the inbound roaming UE (See Fig. 2. Home network/HPLMN is CS/circuit switch),
and the inbound roaming UE (phone label with “12” “LTE” is roaming in Visiting network VPLMN 12) is connected to the IMS node (P/I/S-CSCF 40) through a circuit-switched connection (vMSC 18; visiting mobile switching center)
(Fig. 2 shows that the HPLMN 14 which by definition means HPLMN 14 is the home network a UE subscribed to. This HPLMN labeled as “circuit switch”/CS in Fig. 2 and vPLMN is a visiting network which is a visiting network that the UE roams).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kunz's teaching of emergency call and Abtin's teaching of actually routing the call to the PSAP to also include Yau’s teaching of Circuit switch of the home network in order for the system to be backward compatible with the legacy system.
(Note: Regarding method claim 6, a method claim’s patentability is based on a positively recited active step. However, this method claim 6 does not positively recite any active step. This claim seems to be mere description of the type of network that the UE is connected to, therefore holds very little patentable weight.
Regarding claim 16, an apparatus claim’s patentability is based on its’ distinguishing structures performing a function. Claim 16 is directed toward an IMS node/P-CSCF and seems to merely describes the type of network that the UE is connected to. Therefore, “the type of network that the UE is connected to” is irrelevant to the patentability of a structure of an IMS and holds very little patentable weight. However, for compact prosecution purpose, the limitation for claims 6 and 16 are addressed above).
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz and Abtin in view of Richey (US20210241598)
Regarding claim 8 and 19, Kunz and Abtin teach the method of claim 1, further comprising except for tracking one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) for emergency calls. In an analogous art, Richey teaches tracking one or more key performance indicators (KPIs) for emergency calls ([0024] “Non-limiting examples of applications can be in connection with generating reports of emergency response, evaluating Key Performance Indicator (KPI)/compliance to industry standards, running one or more mapping applications, tracking live vehicular movement of mobile emergency units, displaying visual and numerical reports in the form graphs, analytics, emergency situation response-related metrics, or replaying historical movement of mobile emergency units. For example, the reports can include analytics based on one or more parameters of the call associated with the emergency situation including a date, a type of call and timeliness of response to call. For example, KPI/compliance applications can automatically detect compliance of the response and alert when violations occur.” [0020] “The various embodiments described herein generally provide apparatus, systems and methods for enhanced situational awareness of dispatchers and/or first responders associated with responding to an emergency situation by assigning emergency units to a scene of an incident such as an emergency. As such, an emergency response system is disclosed. (The term, “first responder” is used synonymously herein as “emergency response agency” or “first responder agency.”) [0020] “the disclosed emergency response system provides an electronic platform for collaboration or partnership involving two or more first responders. For purposes of discussions herein, a partnership is defined to be a resource-sharing collaboration between a primary first responder who first receives a call related to an emergency situation and one or more secondary first responders who may (or, may not be) assigned/deployed to the emergency situation. The primary first responder and the one or more secondary first responders share at least a portion of each other's for assignment to an emergency situation”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kunz's teaching of emergency call to include Abtin's teaching of actually routing the call to the PSAP to also include Richey‘s teaching of tracking performance indicators (KPIs) in order to evaluate the efficiency of the system and make potential improvements.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz and Abtin further in view of Rohde (US20240171956)
Regarding claim 9, Kunz and Abtin teach the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving another emergency number associated with the geographic entity or another geographic entity (Kunz [0063] In order to detect the local emergency numbers in the UE 3, the UE 3 may retrieve them from the IP-CAN.; [0057] Step 6: The PGW 15 performs an IP-Connectivity Access Network (IP-CAN);)
However, Kunz does not explicitly teach receiving information specifically from an artificial intelligence component. In an analogous art, Rohde teaches receiving information from an artificial intelligence component (“[0019] “an exemplary embodiment of an apparatus for emergency assistance includes a communications link to one or more public safety answering points, and artificial intelligence engine, and a database. The artificial intelligence engine is coupled via the communications link to the one or more public safety answering points. The artificial intelligence engine uses word associations for machine learning. The artificial intelligence engine receives, via the communications link, audio data, visual data, and text data being sent simultaneously to one or more public safety answering points. The database stores data from a plurality of other emergencies. The artificial intelligence engine queries said database upon receiving an incoming data. The artificial intelligence engine analyses said incoming data and said data from said plurality of other emergencies by recognizing key words and patterns in aggregated and correlated data. Based on said analyzing, said artificial intelligence engine generates one or more of the following messages: an audio message, a visual message, and a text message.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kunz's teaching of emergency call to include Abtin's teaching of actually routing the call to the PSAP of actually routing the call to the PSAP to also include Rohde‘s teaching of receiving data from AI in order to make the system more adaptive and constantly improving and learning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUNG L LAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6497. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday 9-5pm.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at 571-270-3647. 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.
/DUNG L LAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights