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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 4/23/25 and 10/01/2025 have been considered by the examiner and made of record in the application file.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.—An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are
nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: virtual assistant that monitors and context determination engine that determines in claim 18 and virtual assistant that manipulates in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. More specifically, “virtual assistant” with regard to the monitoring is described in applicant’s specification (please see US PGPUB 2026/0059283 A1) in paragraph 21 as monitoring “background information received by electronic communication device 102 (e.g., via one or more sensors 112).”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “wherein the context determination engine determines a context of the possible emergency event and provides context information to the virtual assistant” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of determining a context of the possible emergency event is performed by “context determination engine 122 can analyze sounds or keywords, such as words, phrases, clauses, and/or topics within the audio and/or text information. Context determination engine 122 can also be configured to store or to cause to be stored associated information, such as the keywords, context, and/or cues in database 120 and/or another database.” (paragraph 21 of applicant’s US PGPUB) There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the determination of a context of the possible emergency event. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “determines” refers to a function that can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which type of determination perform(s) the claimed function.
Claim limitation “wherein the virtual assistant manipulates one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device based on the context information” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of manipulates one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device based on the context information is performed by “virtual assistant 118 can automatically manipulate one or more of audio output and display output on the electronic communication device 102 based on context information” (paragraph 21 of applicant’s US PGPUB). In other words, the claims simply repeat what is in the specification, where the specification does not provide any structure for the virtual assistant. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the manipulation of one or more of audio output and visual output. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “manipulate” refers to a function that can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. In fact, applicant discloses in paragraph 21 of applicant’s US PGPUB, that “Virtual assistant 118 can be a stand-alone module or form part of a native dialing application and/or an operating system on device 102 or be an application plugin.” The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which type of manipulation perform(s) the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35
U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
[AltContent: rect]Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of determining a context of the possible emergency event and provides context information to the virtual assistant and manipulating one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device based on the context information. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fountaine, US 20180325469 A1 (hereinafter Fountaine).
Regarding claim 1, Fountaine teaches the electronic communication method comprising the steps of: (Fountaine; para. 6 - - teaches a method, a device, a system, and/or a manufacture of voice-controlled assistance for monitoring adverse events of a user and/or coordinating emergency actions such as caregiver communication).
using an electronic communication device comprising a virtual assistant, monitoring background information for an emergency event; (Fountaine; para 7 & section ii - - teaches the apparatus contains at least one instance of a voice-controlled assistance service. Fountaine further teaches an apparatus includes a microphone to gather from an immediate environment of the microphone a voice communication of a user and/or an ambient sound of the immediate environment.
determining a context of the emergency event; (Fountaine; para 7, section iii- - teaches that the apparatus can determine that the event of concern is an adverse event).
using the electronic communication device, initiating an electronic emergency communication; (Fountaine; para 7, section iv - - teaches the apparatus can initiate an alert message notification to the device of the caregiver of the user based on the adverse event).
and transmitting context-based information to an emergency response service provider (Fountaine; para. 70 - - teaches the log 113 may include responses of the user 100 including various queries translated into text or stored as audio files and/or designations of the negative response event 115, the non-response event 117, and/or the positive response event 119. The log 113 and/or parts of the log 113 may be communicated to the device 700 of the emergency service 150.
Regarding claim 2, Fountaine teaches the electronic communication method of claim 1. Fountaine further teaches wherein the virtual assistant automatically initiates the electronic emergency communication. (Fountaine; para. 14 - - teaches the computer executable instructions further invoke the assistance application and initiate the assistance action upon receiving an authorization from the user.)
Regarding claim 11, Fountaine teaches an electronic context-aware emergency communication method comprising the steps of:
using an electronic communication device comprising a virtual assistant, monitoring background information for a possible emergency event; (Fountaine; para 7 & section ii - - teaches an apparatus includes a microphone to gather from an immediate environment of the microphone a voice communication of a user and/or an ambient sound of the immediate environment. Further, section ii describes the memory executed on a processor determines the occurrence of an event of concern including a non-response event defined as a failure to receive by the microphone a recognizable response from the user (apparatus will also monitor the background and knows what do if background does not provide any input from user 100)).
using a context determination engine, determining whether the possible emergency event is an emergency event; (Fountaine; para 7 & section iii - - teaches the apparatus memory includes computer-executable instructions that when executed on the processor cause the processor to determine that the event of concern is an adverse event).
using the electronic communication device, initiating an emergency electronic communication; (Fountaine; para 7, section iv - - teaches that the memory includes computer-executable instructions that when executed on the processor cause the processor to initiate an alert message notification to the device of the caregiver of the user based on the adverse event).
and using the electronic communication device, transmitting context-based information to an emergency response service provider. (Fountaine; para 7, section iv & para. 49-50 - - teaches that the memory includes computer-executable instructions that when executed on the processor cause the processor to initiate an alert message notification to the device of the caregiver (interpreted as emergency response service provider) of the user based on the adverse event (adverse event is interpreted as context-based information)). Paragraph 49 further specifies that the emergency action data 121 specifies an alert message 122 to be generated along with the data required for routing the message. […] The alert message 122 is communicated through the network 101 to the device 700B of the caregiver 130 and/or the device 700C of the emergency service 150).
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 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.
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.
Claims 18 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fountaine, US 20180325469 A1 in view of Stawiszynski, US 11528589 B2 (hereinafter Stawiszynski).
Regarding claim 18, Fountaine teaches a system for providing context-aware emergency information, the system comprising: an electronic communication device comprising a virtual assistant; (Fountaine; para. 6 - - teaches a method, a device, a system, and/or a manufacture of voice-controlled assistance for monitoring adverse events of a user and/or coordinating emergency actions such as caregiver communication).
and a context determination engine, wherein the virtual assistant monitors background information received by the electronic communication device for a possible emergency event, (Fountaine; para 7 & section ii - - teaches the apparatus contains at least one instance of a voice-controlled assistance service. Fountaine further teaches an apparatus includes a microphone to gather from an immediate environment of the microphone a voice communication of a user and/or an ambient sound of the immediate environment. Further, section ii describes the memory executed on a processor determines the occurrence of an event of concern including a non-response event defined as a failure to receive by the microphone a recognizable response from the user (apparatus will also monitor the background and knows what do if background does not provide any input from user 100)).
Fountaine fails to clearly specify and wherein the context determination engine determines a context of the possible emergency event and provides context information to the virtual assistant.
However, Stawiszynski teaches and wherein the context determination engine determines a context of the possible emergency event and provides context information to the virtual assistant. (Stawiszynski; col. 2, lines 12-15 - - teaches the mobile device monitors, using the virtual assistant application, the emergency call to determine context information of the emergency call; receive, at the virtual assistant application, sensor data from sensors associated with the mobile device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Stawiszynski into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of the context determination engine determining the context of the possible emergency event and provides context information to the virtual assistant, in order to enable the virtual assistant to take more precise emergency actions based on structured, sensor verified context instead of only relying on binary adverse event detection, improving the accuracy of the emergency response initiated by the virtual assistant (see Stawiszynski col. 2, lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Fountaine and Stawiszynski teach the system of claim 18. The combination of Fountaine and Stawiszynski further teach wherein the electronic communication device comprises the context determination engine. (Fountaine; para 7 & section iii - - teaches the apparatus memory includes computer-executable instructions that when executed on the processor cause the processor to determine that the event of concern is an adverse event).
Claims 3, 6, 12, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fountaine, US 20180325469 A1, as applied to claims 1 & 11 above, in view of Herman, US 12604169 B1 (hereinafter Herman).
Regarding claim 3, Fountaine teaches the electronic communication method of claim 1. Fountaine fails to teach wherein determining the context comprises determining a type of the emergency event;
However, Herman teaches wherein determining the context comprises determining a type of the emergency event (Herman; col. 49, lines 43-47 - - teaches the modules 810, 820, 830, and 840 may assist the user in an emergency situation by calling emergency service (e.g., ambulance), provide detail about the user (e.g., location of user, type of emergency, recording of scene, etc.) to the emergency service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Herman into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of determining the context comprises determining a type of the emergency event, in order to enable the system to provide more targeted information to the emergency response service provider based on the specific nature of the emergency, improving efficiency and appropriateness of the emergency response dispatched (see Herman; col. 49, lines 43-47).
Regarding claim 6, Fountaine teaches the electronic communication method of claim 1. Fountaine fails to teach a step of monitoring a call context, wherein, based on one or more of the call context and the context-based information, the virtual assistant provides information to a user, indicating that the virtual assistant is handling the emergency electronic communication.
However, Herman teaches a step of monitoring a call context, wherein, based on one or more of the call context and the context-based information, the virtual assistant provides information to a user, indicating that the virtual assistant is handling the emergency electronic communication. (Herman; col. 49, lines 51-55 - - teaches a communication between user and digital assistance, read as “User: “Hey Digital Assistant, how do I perform CPR?” DA (to User): “Sure, do you need emergency services?” User: Yes! DA (to User): “Ok calling 911, activating emergency mode”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Herman into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of the virtual assistant provides information to a user based on one or more of the call context and the context-based information, indicating that the virtual assistant is handling the emergency electronic communication, in order to keep the user informed of the system’s actions during an emergency without requiring the user to actively manage the communication themselves, improving user awareness and reducing confusion during high-stress emergency situations where the user may be unable to speak or interact with the device (see Herman col. 49, lines 51-55.)
Regarding claim 12, Fountaine teaches the method of claim 11. Fountaine fails to teach wherein the step of initiating an emergency electronic communication is automatically performed by the virtual assistant upon determination of the emergency event.
However, Herman teaches wherein the step of initiating an emergency electronic communication is automatically performed by the virtual assistant upon determination of the emergency event. (Herman; col. 54, lines 5-8 - - teaches the digital assistant 1115 may use different formats (e.g., phone call, video call, text, etc.) to connect to emergency services based on capability of the extended reality device 1006.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Herman into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of the virtual assistant automatically initiating the emergency electronic communication upon determination of the emergency event, in order to reduce response time and eliminate the need for user intervention in situations where the user may be incapacitated, unconscious, or otherwise unable to manually initiate an emergency call, improving the reliability and speed of the emergency response initiation (see Herman; col. 54, lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 13, Fountaine teaches the method of claim 11. Fountaine fails to teach wherein the virtual assistant determines a preferred mode of communication between the electronic communication device and the emergency response service provider.
However, Herman teaches wherein the virtual assistant determines a preferred mode of communication between the electronic communication device and the emergency response service provider. (Herman; col. 47, lines 30-33 - - teaches if the electronic device is in low battery mode, the communications module 834 may choose to call or text the emergency services instead of video calling the emergency services).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Herman into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of the virtual assistant determining a preferred mode of communication between the electronic communication device and the emergency response service provider, in order to maximize the likelihood of a successful emergency communications by dynamically selecting the most appropriate and reliable communication mode based on current device conditions and capabilities, improving the robustness and effectiveness of the emergency communication in varying device states (see Herman, col. 47, lines 30-33).
Claims 4, 5, 7-10 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fountaine, US 20180325469 A1, as applied to claim 1 & 11 above, in view of Philbin, US 10044857 B2 (hereinafter Philbin).
Regarding claim 4, Fountaine teaches the electronic communication method of claim 1. Fountaine fails to teach further comprising determining a threat level of the emergency event.
However, Philbin teaches determining a threat level of the emergency event. (Philbin; col. 5, lines 36-37 - - teaches the emergency communication 106 can be categorized as urgent or emergency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of determining a threat level of the emergency event, in order to enable the system to calibrate the urgency and type of emergency response deployed based on the severity of the detected emergency, improving the appropriateness and efficiency of emergency resource allocation by ensuring that high threat emergencies receive immediate dispatch while lower threat situations receive a measured response (see Philbin col. 5, lines 36-37).
Regarding claim 5, Fountaine teaches the electronic communication method of claim 1. Fountaine fails to teach further comprising a step of monitoring a call context, wherein, based on the call context, the virtual assistant suspends or manipulates one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device.
However, Philbin teaches further comprising a step of monitoring a call context, wherein, based on the call context, the virtual assistant suspends or manipulates one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device. (Philbin; col. 2, lines 36-43 - - teaches if it is an emergency situation, the method can include transmitting, via the communication network, the emergency data message to a public safety answering point (PSAP) and transmitting a message causing the virtual assistant to transmit an audio message indicating that an emergency service provider has been dispatched route to the home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of monitoring a call context, wherein, based on the call context, the virtual assistant suspends or manipulates one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device, in order to allow the system to dynamically manage the device’s audio and visual output during an emergency communication to avoid alerting potential threats to the user’s location or status, improving user safety during emergency situations where audible or visible device activity could endanger the user (see Philbin col. 2, lines 36-43).
Regarding claim 7, Fountaine teaches the electronic communication method of claim 1. Fountaine fails to teach wherein the emergency response service provider is an emergency call center.
However, Philbin teaches wherein the emergency response service provider is an emergency call center. (Philbin; col. 1, lines 54-57 & col. 6 lines 12-15 - - teaches A PSAP is a call center responsible for answering calls to an emergency telephone number (e.g., 911), for police, firefighting, and ambulance/Emergency Medical Services (EMS). Philbin further teaches the PSAP 150, or a 911 call center, can dispatch emergency services such as an emergency responder 160 to the home 110 in response to the emergency communication 106).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of the emergency response service provider being an emergency call center, in order to connect the user’s emergency communication directly to a staffed, government-operated dispatch center capable of deploying appropriate emergency resources including police, fire, and ambulance services, improving the speed and effectiveness of emergency response by routing the emergency communication to an established public safety infrastructure (see Philbin; col. 1, lines 54-57 & col. 6 lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 8, Fountaine teaches the electronic communication method of claim 1. Fountaine fails to teach further comprising providing information from a call server to the emergency response service provider.
However, Philbin teaches further comprising providing information from a call server to the emergency response service provider. (Philbin; col. 6, lines 9-12 - - teaches the PERS 100 (interpreted as the call server) can route the emergency communication 106 and other information about the emergency and the injured individual to a PSAP 150 (interpreted as the emergency response service provider or call center) via the Internet 102 or other communication networks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of providing information from a call server to the emergency response service provider, in order to supplement the emergency communication with additional contextual information about the user and the emergency that the ERSP can use to dispatch appropriate resources and prepare responders before arrival, improving the quality and completeness of information available to emergency dispatchers and first responders at the time of emergency (see Philbin, col. 6, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fountaine and Philbin teach the method of claim 8. The combination of Fountaine and Philbin further teach wherein the server comprises a PBX. (Philbin; col. 7, lines 25-27 - - teaches the TSS 181 (that is located inside PERS 100) can be an Internet Protocol Private Branch Exchange (IP PBX)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of the server comprising a PBX, in order to supplement the emergency communication with additional contextual information about the user and the emergency that the ERSP can use to dispatch appropriate resources and prepare responders before arrival, improving the quality and completeness of information available to emergency dispatchers and first responders at the time of emergency (see Philbin, col. 6, lines 9-12).
Regarding claim 10, Fountaine teaches the method of claim 1. Fountaine fails to teach further comprising a step of sending ancillary information from an ancillary device via the electronic communication device to the emergency response service provider.
However, Philbin teaches further comprising a step of sending ancillary information from an ancillary device via the electronic communication device to the emergency response service provider. (Philbin; col. 18, lines 22-24 & 28-32 - - teaches the IoT device 118 (interpreted as the ancillary device) can also provide additional information to aid in an emergency response. Such data derived from the IoT device 118 can be saved to the incident report in the incident DB 252. This information can be made available via the short URL 245 to, for example the fire department to tailor their response.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of sending ancillary information from an ancillary device via the electronic communication device to the emergency response service provider, in order to provide emergency responders with a more complete picture of the user’s condition and environment at the time of the emergency by incorporating data from peripheral devices beyond what the primary communication device alone can capture improving the accuracy and comprehensiveness of emergency response by enabling responders such as the fire department to tailor their approach based on real-time ancillary data such as health metrics and environmental sensor readings before arriving at the scene (see Philbin col. 12, lines 22-24 and 28-32).
Regarding claim 14, Fountaine teaches the method of claim 11. Fountaine fails to teach further comprising receiving ancillary information from an ancillary device and transmitting the ancillary information to the emergency response service provider.
However, Philbin teaches further comprising receiving ancillary information from an ancillary device and transmitting the ancillary information to the emergency response service provider. (Philbin; col. 18, lines 22-24 & 28-32 - - teaches the IoT device 118 (interpreted as the ancillary device) can also provide additional information to aid in an emergency response. Such data derived from the IoT device 118 can be saved to the incident report in the incident DB 252. This information can be made available via the short URL 245 to, for example the fire department to tailor their response.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of receiving ancillary information from an ancillary device and transmitting the ancillary information to the emergency response service provider, in order to provide emergency responders with a more complete picture of the user’s condition and environment at the time of the emergency by incorporating data from peripheral devices beyond what the primary communication device alone can capture improving the accuracy and comprehensiveness of emergency response by enabling responders such as the fire department to tailor their approach based on real-time ancillary data such as health metrics and environmental sensor readings before arriving at the scene (see Philbin col. 18, lines 22-24 and 28-32).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Fountaine and Philbin teach the method of claim 14. The combination of Fountaine and Philbin further teach wherein the step of transmitting the ancillary information comprises sending real-time user health information. (Philbin; col. 16, lines 42-45 - - teaches the DMS 176 can have a health tracker DB (HealthTrack) 258. The HealthTrack 248 can connect in-home smart medical devices (e.g., the IoT device 118) to health care professionals via the internet 102.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of transmitting real time user health information as the ancillary information sent to the emergency response service provider, in order to equip emergency responders and dispatch personnel with up to date health data about the user at the time of emergency, enabling more informed triage decisions and improving the speed and quality of medical care delivered upon arrival od personnel.
Regarding claim 16, Fountaine teaches the method of claim 11. Fountaine fails to teach a step of sending information to a responder device based on the context-based information.
However, Philbin teaches a step of sending information to a responder device based on the context-based information. (Philbin; col. 8, lines 30-33 - - teaches the virtual assistant 112 can thus communicate with the user to determine the nature and extent of the emergency and transmit that information to emergency responder device 162).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of sending information to a responder device based on the context-based information, in order to ensure that first responders are equipped with relevant, context-specific information about the user and the emergency before arriving at the scene, improving the speed and quality of care delivered by enabling responders to prepare an appropriate and tailored response based on the specific nature of the emergency as determined from the context based information (see Philbin, col. 8, lines 30-33).
Regarding claim 17, Fountaine teaches the method of claim 11. Fountain fails to teach further comprising a step of, using the virtual assistant, manipulating one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device.
However, Philbin teaches further comprising a step of, using the virtual assistant, manipulating one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device. (Philbin; col. 2, lines 36-43 - - teaches if it is an emergency situation, the method can include transmitting, via the communication network, the emergency data message to a public safety answering point (PSAP) and transmitting a message causing the virtual assistant to transmit an audio message indicating that an emergency service provider has been dispatched route to the home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine to include the feature of manipulating one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device, in order to keep the user informed of the system’s actions during an emergency by providing real time audio and visual feedback confirming that the virtual assistant is actively managing the emergency communication, improving user awareness and reducing uncertainty during high stress emergency situations where the user may be unable to actively monitor the status of their emergency call (see Philbin, col. 2, lines 36-43).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fountaine, US 20180325469 A1, in view of Stawiszynski, US 11528589 B2, further in view of Philbin, US 10044857 B2.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Fountaine and Stawiszynski teach the system of claim 18. The combination of Fountaine and Stawiszynski fail to teach wherein the virtual assistant manipulates one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device based on the context information.
However, Philbin teaches wherein the virtual assistant manipulates one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device based on the context information (Philbin; col. 2, lines 36-43 - - teaches if it is an emergency situation, the method can include transmitting, via the communication network, the emergency data message to a public safety answering point (PSAP) and transmitting a message causing the virtual assistant to transmit an audio message indicating that an emergency service provider has been dispatched route to the home).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Philbin into the invention of Fountaine and Stawiszynski to include the feature of virtual assistant manipulating one or more of audio output and visual output on the electronic communication device based on the context information, in order to provide the user with real time feedback through the device’s audio and visual outputs that reflects the current context of the emergency, confirming to the user that the virtual assistant is actively handling the emergency communication and reducing the need for the user to intervene, improving user awareness and safety during emergency situations where audible or visual confirmation of the systems actions may be critical (see Philbin, col. 2, lines 36-43).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRES RAFAEL SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-8776. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-9:00.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/ANDRES RAFAEL SANCHEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2645
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights