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 .
Status
The present application was filed July 9, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 includes a last element that reads “updating by the computing device, the registered location such that the particular is the registered location”. Examiner interprets “such that the particular is” is a typo and should be “such that the particular location is”. Examiner notes that the other independent claims with the similar element include the word “particular location”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. US 20150237469 to Greg Stephens et al. (hereinafter Stephens) in view of FCC 47 CFR 9.11 (84 FR 66760, Dec. 5, 2019, as amended at 85 FR 78022, Dec. 3, 2020) (hereinafter FCC).
Regarding claim 1, Stephens teaches A method of updating a registered location for emergency calls, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a trigger corresponding to a particular location; (Stephens para. [0035] teaches that a dynamic update may be performed upon the initiation of an emergency or other call or upon the occurrence of some other event “or trigger” which allows a user to enter a location manually, which will be compared to current GPS data for the user.)
generating, by the computing device, a prompt to update a registered location for display by the computing device; (Stephens para. [0041] teaches “ For example, when the user of the mobile VoIP device attempts to place an emergency call, a pop up dialog or other interface may be presented to the user to display the current address and prompt the user to provide confirmation of that address as being correct”)
receiving, by the computing device, an input via the prompt, indicating that the registered location is to be updated to include the particular location; (Stephens para [0038] teaches “When an emergency call is initiated 420 from the mobile VoIP device, the mobile VoIP device can selectively use either the registered physical address or the dynamically updated current address for the emergency call. That is, if the current address is different from the registered address, and perhaps confirmed by the user, it may be used in place of the registered address.”)
accessing, by the computing device, current location data associated with the computing device; (Stephens teaches in para. [0030] periodically checking a current location of a mobile VoIP device.)
determining, by the computing device, whether or not the current location data corresponds to the particular location; in response to determining that the current location data corresponds to the particular location; (Stephens teaches in para. [0043] comparing a received address to GPS or other location data to determine if a substantial match can be made.)
and
Stephens does NOT specifically teach updating, by the computing device, the registered location such that the particular is the registered location.
In the same field of endeavor, FCC teaches updating, by the computing device, the registered location such that the particular is the registered location. (FCC, section 9.11, (B)(3) provides that “The service provider must identify whether the service is being used to call 911 from a different location than the Registered Location, and if so, either: (i) Prompt the customer to provide a new Registered Location”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine FCC with Stephens to teach updating the registered location. Each of FCC and Stephens are in the field of emergency communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine FCC with Stephens in order to abide by FCC requirements for 911 communications.
Regarding claim 2, Stephens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein in response to determining that the current location does not correspond to the particular location, the method further comprises:
generating, by the computing device, a confirmation notification indicating that the current location does not correspond to the particular location; (Stephens para. [0035] teaches “, the application executing on the mobile VoIP device 305a can present a pop-up or other interface containing the address that will be associated with the call and can allow the user to confirm or deny the accuracy of the current address.”)
and
displaying, by the computing device, the confirmation notification. (Stephens para. [0035] teaches that the pop-up is displaying on the VoIP device 305).
Regarding claim 3, Stephens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the prompt indicates a current location based at least in part on the current location data. (Stephens teaches in para. [0035] that the application for the VoIP device will contain an address that will be associated with the call unless the user denies the accuracy of the location.)
Regarding claim 4, Stephens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the trigger corresponds to a user input or a first-time connection of the computing device to a WiFi network. (Stephens teaches in para. [0035] that the trigger may occur upon the initiation of a VoIP call, which would Examiner interprets as a user input being a call.)
Regarding claim 6, Stephens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the trigger is generated by the computing device according to a predetermined time period. (Stephens teaches in para. [0035] that dynamic updates may be performed “upon expiration of a pre-defined time period” ... or other trigger.)
Regarding claim 8, Stephens teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device is configured to perform voice over WiFi calls. (Stephens para. [0021] teaches that the invention includes a method for routing VoIP 911 calls, which according to Stephens para. [0037] includes WiFi).
Regarding claim 10, Stephens teaches A system, comprising: one or more processors; (Stephens para. [0027] processor 235) and a computer-readable medium comprising instructions (Stephens para. [0028] medium 225b) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations to:
receive, by a computing device, a trigger corresponding to a particular location; (Stephens para. [0035] teaches that a dynamic update may be performed upon the initiation of an emergency or other call or upon the occurrence of some other event “or trigger” which allows a user to enter a location manually, which will be compared to current GPS data for the user.)
generate, by the computing device, a prompt to update a registered location for display by the computing device; (Stephens para. [0041] teaches “ For example, when the user of the mobile VoIP device attempts to place an emergency call, a pop up dialog or other interface may be presented to the user to display the current address and prompt the user to provide confirmation of that address as being correct”)
receive, by the computing device, an input via the prompt, indicating that the registered location is to be updated to include the particular location; (Stephens para [0038] teaches “When an emergency call is initiated 420 from the mobile VoIP device, the mobile VoIP device can selectively use either the registered physical address or the dynamically updated current address for the emergency call. That is, if the current address is different from the registered address, and perhaps confirmed by the user, it may be used in place of the registered address.”)
access, by the computing device, current location data associated with the computing device; (Stephens teaches in para. [0030] periodically checking a current location of a mobile VoIP device.)
determine, by the computing device, whether or not the current location data corresponds to the particular location; in response to determining that the current location data corresponds to the particular location; (Stephens teaches in para. [0043] comparing a received address to GPS or other location data to determine if a substantial match can be made.)
and
Stephens does NOT specifically teach update, by the computing device, the registered location such that the particular location is the registered location.
In the same field of endeavor, FCC teaches update, by the computing device, the registered location such that the particular location is the registered location. (FCC, section 9.11, (B)(3) provides that “The service provider must identify whether the service is being used to call 911 from a different location than the Registered Location, and if so, either: (i) Prompt the customer to provide a new Registered Location”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine FCC with Stephens to teach updating the registered location. Each of FCC and Stephens are in the field of emergency communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine FCC with Stephens in order to abide by FCC requirements for 911 communications.
Regarding claim 11, Stephens teaches The system of claim 10, wherein in response to determining that the current location does not correspond to the particular location, the operations further cause the system to:
generate, by the computing device, a confirmation notification indicating that the current location does not correspond to the particular location; (Stephens para. [0035] teaches “, the application executing on the mobile VoIP device 305a can present a pop-up or other interface containing the address that will be associated with the call and can allow the user to confirm or deny the accuracy of the current address.”)
and
display, by the computing device, the confirmation notification. (Stephens para. [0035] teaches that the pop-up is displaying on the VoIP device 305).
Regarding claim 12, Stephens teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the user prompt indicates a current location based at least in part on the current location data. (Stephens teaches in para. [0035] that the application for the VoIP device will contain an address that will be associated with the call unless the user denies the accuracy of the location.)
Regarding claim 13, Stephens teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the trigger corresponds to a user input or a first-time connection of the computing device to a WiFi network. (Stephens teaches in para. [0035] that the trigger may occur upon the initiation of a VoIP call, which would Examiner interprets as a user input being a call.)
Regarding claim 15, Stephens teaches The system of claim 10, wherein the trigger is generated by the computing device according to a predetermined time period. (Stephens teaches in para. [0035] that dynamic updates may be performed “upon expiration of a pre-defined time period” ... or other trigger.)
Regarding claim 17, Stephens teaches A non-transitory computer-readable memory (Stephens para. [0018] teaches a machine-readable medium) comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a trigger corresponding to a particular location; (Stephens para. [0035] teaches that a dynamic update may be performed upon the initiation of an emergency or other call or upon the occurrence of some other event “or trigger” which allows a user to enter a location manually, which will be compared to current GPS data for the user.)
generating, by the computing device, a prompt to update a registered location for display by the computing device; (Stephens para. [0041] teaches “ For example, when the user of the mobile VoIP device attempts to place an emergency call, a pop up dialog or other interface may be presented to the user to display the current address and prompt the user to provide confirmation of that address as being correct”)
receiving, by the computing device, an input via the prompt, indicating that the registered location is to be updated to include the particular location; (Stephens para [0038] teaches “When an emergency call is initiated 420 from the mobile VoIP device, the mobile VoIP device can selectively use either the registered physical address or the dynamically updated current address for the emergency call. That is, if the current address is different from the registered address, and perhaps confirmed by the user, it may be used in place of the registered address.”)
accessing, by the computing device, current location data associated with the computing device; (Stephens teaches in para. [0030] periodically checking a current location of a mobile VoIP device.)
determining, by the computing device, whether or not the current location data corresponds to the particular location; in response to determining that the current location data corresponds to the particular location; (Stephens teaches in para. [0043] comparing a received address to GPS or other location data to determine if a substantial match can be made.)
and
Stephens does NOT specifically teach updating, by the computing device, the registered location such that the particular location is the registered location.
In the same field of endeavor, FCC teaches updating, by the computing device, the registered location such that the particular location is the registered location. (FCC, section 9.11, (B)(3) provides that “The service provider must identify whether the service is being used to call 911 from a different location than the Registered Location, and if so, either: (i) Prompt the customer to provide a new Registered Location”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine FCC with Stephens to teach updating the registered location. Each of FCC and Stephens are in the field of emergency communications. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine FCC with Stephens in order to abide by FCC requirements for 911 communications.
Regarding claim 18, Stephens teaches The non-transitory computer-readable memory of claim 17, wherein in response to determining that the current location does not correspond to the particular location, the operations further comprise:
generating, by the computing device, a confirmation notification indicating that the current location does not correspond to the particular location; (Stephens para. [0035] teaches “, the application executing on the mobile VoIP device 305a can present a pop-up or other interface containing the address that will be associated with the call and can allow the user to confirm or deny the accuracy of the current address.”)
and
displaying, by the computing device, the confirmation notification. (Stephens para. [0035] teaches that the pop-up is displaying on the VoIP device 305).
Regarding claim 19, Stephens teaches The non-transitory computer-readable memory of claim 17, wherein the user prompt indicates a current location based at least in part on the current location data. (Stephens teaches in para. [0035] that the application for the VoIP device will contain an address that will be associated with the call unless the user denies the accuracy of the location.)
Regarding claim 20, Stephens teaches The non-transitory computer-readable memory of claim 17, wherein the trigger corresponds to a user input or a first-time connection of the computing device to a WiFi network. (Stephens teaches that the trigger may occur upon the initiation of a VoIP call, which would Examiner interprets as a user input being a call.)
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens and FCC further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20190253861 to Nicholas Edward Horelik et al. (hereinafter Horelik) in view of US Pat. Pub. 20160295372 Cagatay Berk Kapicioglu (hereinafter Kapicioglu).
Regarding claim 5, Stephens in view of FCC teaches the method of claim 1 as stated.
Stephens teaches determining, by the computing device, a plurality of location data; (Stephens teaches in para. [0034] determining a plurality of location data in that it dynamically updates server and phone side profiles with current location data.)
Stephens does NOT teach providing, by the computing device, the plurality of location data to a machine learning model, the machine learning model trained to determine one or more candidate locations, each with a respective score; receiving, by the computing device, the one or more candidate locations with the respective scores; and responsive to receiving a candidate location with a respective score above a pre-determined threshold, generating the trigger.”
In the same field of endeavor, Horelik teaches providing, by the computing device, the plurality of location data to a machine learning model, the machine learning model trained to determine one or more candidate locations, each with a respective score; (Horelik para. [0209] teaches that location validation and prediction is performed using machine learning as shown in Table 4 “Machine Learning Considerations” which determines “candidate locations”. Horelik para. [0215] teaches that for validation, the ELAS obtains an output, which is a distance from ground-truth (in meters) using a regressor prediction algorithm. The predicted distance from ground-truth may be compared to one or more location accuracy thresholds, mapped to “scores”, to generate an output on whether the reported location should be provided to a PSAP or other recipients.)
receiving, by the computing device, the one or more candidate locations [[with the respective scores]]; (Horelik teaches as shown in Fig. 14B receiving a map with candidate locations:
PNG
media_image1.png
633
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and responsive to receiving a candidate location [[with a respective score]] above a pre-determined threshold, generating the trigger. (Horelik para. [0228] teaches PSAP display 1450 in FIG. 14B shows a graphical display including validated or predicted locations. As shown, the validated location 1452 (depicted by X) is shown with a confidence circle 1459. On the display 1450, the carrier-provided location 1456 is also displayed, which is a distance 1457 from the validated location. The shown locations meet a threshold as taught in para. [0215])
Stephens in view of Horelik does NOT teach candidate locations “with respective scores” as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of wireless communications, Kapicioglu teaches receiving candidate locations “with respective scores”. (Kapicioglu teaches in para. [0046], ranking of “identified candidate venues” via a machine-learning model to improve accuracy in determining likelihood that a processing device is located at a particular venue using scoring methods to rank candidate venues for place matching.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Stephens with Kapicioglu to teach scoring of candidate locations. Each of Stephens and Kapicioglu are in the field of wireless communications and mapping. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kapicioglu with Stephens in order to predict locations based on wireless scan data instead of using more resources battery via GPS signals as taught in Kapicioglu para. [0012].
Regarding claim 14, Stephens in view of FCC teaches the system of claim 10 as stated.
Stephens further teaches wherein the operations further cause the system to: determine, by the computing device, a plurality of location data; (Stephens teaches in para. [0034] determining a plurality of location data in that it dynamically updates server and phone side profiles with current location data.)
Stephens does NOT teach provide, by the computing device, the plurality of location data to a machine learning model, the machine learning model trained to determine one or more candidate locations, each with a respective score; receive, by the computing device, the one or more candidate locations with the respective scores; and responsive to receiving a candidate location with a respective score above a pre-determined threshold, generate the trigger.
In the same field of endeavor, Horelik teaches provide, by the computing device, the plurality of location data to a machine learning model, the machine learning model trained to determine one or more candidate locations, each with a respective score; (Horelik para. [0209] teaches that location validation and prediction is performed using machine learning as shown in Table 4 “Machine Learning Considerations” which determines “candidate locations”. Horelik para. [0215] teaches that for validation, the ELAS obtains an output, which is a distance from ground-truth (in meters) using a regressor prediction algorithm. The predicted distance from ground-truth may be compared to one or more location accuracy thresholds, mapped to “scores”, to generate an output on whether the reported location should be provided to a PSAP or other recipients.)
receive, by the computing device, the one or more candidate locations [[with the respective scores]]; (Horelik teaches as shown in Fig. 14B receiving a map with candidate locations:
PNG
media_image1.png
633
839
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Horelik para. [0228] teaches PSAP display 1450 in FIG. 14B shows a graphical display including validated or predicted locations. As shown, the validated location 1452 (depicted by X) is shown with a confidence circle 1459. On the display 1450, the carrier-provided location 1456 is also displayed, which is a distance 1457 from the validated location. The shown locations meet a threshold as taught in para. [0215])
and
responsive to receiving a candidate location with a respective score above a pre-determined threshold, generate the trigger. (Horelik teaches in para. [0215] that the predicted distance from ground-truth may be compared to one or more location accuracy thresholds, mapped to “scores”, to generate an output on whether the reported location should be provided to a PSAP or other recipients.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Stephens with Horelik. Each of Stephens and Horelik are in the field of emergency calls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Horelik with Stephens in order to aid emergency service providers as taught in Horelik para. [0003].
Stephens in view of Horelik does NOT teach candidate locations “with respective scores” as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of wireless communications, Kapicioglu teaches receiving candidate locations “with respective scores”. (Kapicioglu teaches in para. [0046], ranking of “identified candidate venues” via a machine-learning model to improve accuracy in determining likelihood that a processing device is located at a particular venue using scoring methods to rank candidate venues for place matching.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to combine Stephens with Kapicioglu to teach scoring of candidate locations. Each of Stephens and Kapicioglu are in the field of wireless communications and mapping. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Kapicioglu with Stephens in order to predict locations based on wireless scan data instead of using more resources battery via GPS signals as taught in Kapicioglu para. [0012].
Claim 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens and FCC further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20170180966 to William Todd Piett et al. (hereinafter Piett).
Regarding claim 7, Stephens does NOT specifically teach “The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device is associated with a plurality of registered locations.” (Stephens teaches updating a registered location with a current location and teaches multiple locations but not multiple registered locations.)
In the same field of endeavor, Piett teaches wherein the computing device is associated with a plurality of registered locations. (Piett teaches in para. [0011] that a 911 call in a proposed National Emergency Address Database architecture includes an algorithm that retrieves registered locations for each access point including a list of candidate addresses to help emergency responders.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Piett with Stephens to teach a plurality of registered locations. Each of Piett and Stephens address 911 emergency calls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piett with Stephens because Piett in para. [0012] teaches notifying on-site responders to 911 calls within a location served by a multi-line telephone system to prevent a delayed response to an emergency call.
Regarding claim 16, Stephens does NOT teach “The system of claim 10, wherein the computing device is associated with a plurality of registered locations.” (Stephens teaches updating a registered location with a current location and teaches multiple locations but not multiple registered locations.)
In the same field of endeavor, Piett teaches wherein the computing device is associated with a plurality of registered locations. (Piett teaches in para. [0011] that a 911 call in a proposed National Emergency Address Database architecture includes an algorithm that retrieves registered locations for each access point including a list of candidate addresses to help emergency responders.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Piett with Stephens to teach a plurality of registered locations. Each of Piett and Stephens address 911 emergency calls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Piett with Stephens because Piett in para. [0012] teaches notifying on-site responders to 911 calls within a location served by a multi-line telephone system to prevent a delayed response to an emergency call.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens and FCC further in view of US Pat. Pub. 20260006132 to John Robert Katt (hereinafter Katt)
Regarding claim 9, Stephens does NOT specifically teach The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device transmits the registered location to a network service of a 5G network. (Stephens para. [0037] teaches that the embodiments relate to cellular networks including “Any wireless standard can be employed for the cellular communication mode including, but not limited to, GSM, IS-95/CDMA, W-CDMA, UMTS, etc.” which would necessarily include 5G had it existed at the time of the Stephens invention.)
In the same field of endeavor, Katt teaches wherein the computing device transmits the registered location to a network service of a 5G network. (Katt teaches in para. [0083] that the PSAP database registry may be a source for locations for an ECC, and in para. [0057] specifically identifies cellular networks “including 5G networks.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective date of the invention to have combined Stephens with Katt. Each of Stephens and Katt are in the field of emergency calls. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Katt with Stephens in order to take advantage of advanced capabilities as taught in Katt para. [0005].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (703)756-1068. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/MARGARET MARIE ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights