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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-24-2026 have been fully considered but the rejection of record is maintained until the 112 rejection is solved.
The rejection of record Zhu in view of Smelyansky disclosed most of the limitations as explained below but appears that the limitation of receiving a service address and another emergency telephone number server address from a user associated with an appliance device may not be disclosed by the combination. However, there is an uncertainty if the limitation is described in the specification and has proper support; thereby, it is unclear the scope of the limitation. The art rejection of record stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The examiner was unable to find support in the specification for the limitation “another emergency telephone number server address”. Please indicate where support can be found and note that the specification needs to support each step of the another emergency telephone number server address. The rest of the claims share the issue by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Since the examiner was unable to find support in the specification for the limitation “another emergency telephone number server address”, it is unclear the scope of the limitation. Please clarify. The rest of the claims share the issue by virtue of dependency.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu 9237228 in view of Smelyansky 20110026687.
As to claim 1, Zhu discloses a method for provisioning an appliance device (see abstract) comprising:
receiving a service address from a user associated with an appliance device (see col. 7, lines 32-34);
validating the received service address and another emergency telephone number server address [using the ip address for the communication with the server is equated to the validation] (see fig. 3; col. 5, lines 14-21; col. 8, lines 13-57);
storing the validated service address and another emergency telephone number server address (see col. 8, lines 48-57);
receiving a panic signal from the user using the appliance device after the validated service address is stored (see col. 7, lines 30-31);
providing the validated service address to an emergency telephone number service provider for provisioning (see col. 7, lines 37-40);
determining that the provisioning of the emergency telephone number service provider is unsuccessful (see col.8, lines 48-50); and
transmitting the validated service address to a PSAP (public safety access point) (see col. 7, lines 37-40), and in response to the provisioning being unsuccessful transmitting an error message [not in the 911 service coverage] (see col. 9, lines 2-6). Zhu fails to disclose a national PSAP. In an analogous art, Smelyansky discloses determining that the provisioning of the emergency telephone number service provider is unsuccessful and transmitting the service address to a national PSAP (public safety access point), in response to the provisioning being unsuccessful [PSAP does not exist for the caller] (see par. 0012). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to add the national PSAP to Zhu for the simple purpose of indicating first responders the need of help even in the absence of a local PSAP; thereby, allowing providing emergency services.
As to claim 2, Zhu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the emergency telephone number service provider is a 911 service provider [for examination purposes any item that provide a service to a 911 call is a 911 service provider] (see col. 7, lines 30-62).
As to claim 3, Zhu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the phone is a mobile phone or a smartphone (see col. 5, lines 12-13).
As to claim 4, Zhu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the phone is serviced by one of plain old telephone service, T1, and VoIP protocols (see abstract).
As to claim 5, Zhu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: sending an emergency call signal to a 911 server; and determining, by the 911 server, whether the phone has already been provisioned with 911 services (see fig. 3; col. 15, lines 62- 67).
As to claim 6, Zhu discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: upon a determination that the phone is not provisioned for 911 services, retrieving a previously validated address from an address database coupled to the 911 service provider; and submitting the previously validated address to the 911 service provider (see fig. 4; col. 17, lines 18-29).
As to claim 7, Zhu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein storing the validated service address further comprises storing the validated service address in an address database (see col. 8, lines 51-53).
As to claim 8, Zhu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the user provides the service address during an activation process of the appliance device (see col. 7, lines 38-40).
As to claims 9-10, Zhu discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the panic signal is triggered in response to the user dialing on the appliance device (see col. 5, lines 50-52). Zhu does not specify how the dialing is accomplished. However, OFICIAL NOTICE IS TAKEN THAT the use of touchtone phones and emergency panic buttons are common and well-known techniques to initiate a call for help. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to press or strike a button in the appliance device to start an emergency for an easy and fast way to call for help; thereby, allowing providing emergency services and saving lives.
Regarding claims 11-20, they are the corresponding system claims of method claims 1-10. Therefore, claims 11-20 are rejected for the same reasons as shown above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MARCOS L TORRES whose telephone number is (571)272-7926. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571)270-0375. 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.
MARCOS L. TORRES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2647
/MARCOS L TORRES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
