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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 9/08/26 is acknowledged. Please note: There was a typo in the restriction requirement as independent claim 15 was intended for Group II only, not both groups. Group I is drawn to receipt of the press of an SOS button, which is clearly not included in claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over anticipated by Applicant’s submission of prior art, Kumar et al., WO 2006/104560 (hereinafter Kumar) in view of Applicant’s submission of prior art, Praveenkumar et al., CN 105264926 (hereinafter Praveenkumar).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Kumar discloses a method for data-only communication in emergency, comprising: receiving, by a mobile device, a press on an SOS button on the mobile device [paragraphs 0036-0037]; generating, by the mobile device, a data alert in response to the receipt of the press on the SOS button [paragraph 0049]; and generating, by the mobile device, a data-only report to a remote server, wherein the data-only report includes the data alert [paragraphs 0052-0054].
What Kumar does not specifically disclose is determining, by the mobile device, that data transmission is more reliable than voice call under a network condition where data transmission channel and voice transmission channel are sequentially arranged. However, Praveenkumar teaches this limitation [reproduced from translation: “the text-only mode may be particularly useful in low signal strength conditions, because the payload text need significantly less than the audio data so as to use TCP to communicate. text-only mode message can use RTSP is sent as an M3 message.” Further, it is obvious that this technique can be applied in VoLTE or 5G systems where data transmission and voice transmission channels are sequentially arranged]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kumar to include the teaching of Praveenkumar. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Kumar discloses wherein the data-only report includes location information of the mobile device to allow the remote server to locate the mobile device [paragraphs 0042, 0049].
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 1-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8, and 10-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,010,600. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generic to all that is recited in the patented claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. Specifically, instant independent claims 1 and 8 are taught in patented claims 1 and 12, respectively. The instant claim are broader as they omit the patented limitations regarding the mobile device being connected to the phone network and the Internet and receiving remote configuration from an emergency monitoring server. Instant dependent claims 2 and 9 are taught in patented claims 5 and 16, respectively. Instant dependent claims 3 and 10 are taught in patented claims 2 and 13, respectively. Instant dependent claims 4 and 11 are taught in patented claim 8. Instant dependent claims 5 and 12 are taught in patented claims 3 and 14, respectively. Instant dependent claims 6 and 13 are taught in patented claims 4 and 15, respectively. Instant dependent claims 7 and 14 are taught in patented claims 10 and 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7 and 10-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ross et al, WO 2018/170536, disclose an emergency response system.
Gupta et al., WO 2012/137226, disclose a mobile communication device for providing an emergency call.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/EAW/
September 23, 2026
/ERIKA A WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights