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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Each of the independent claims recites steps that result in determining a call was not received by a PSAP, identifying the telephone number of the call and determining whether a callback to the telephone number was received can be performed by reading telecommunications systems records. All of the recited steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the limitations under the organized human activity.
The claim features under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are certain methods of organizing human activity performed by generic computer components. For example, but for the “performing” [human behavior:], “identifying” [human activity:], in the context of this claim encompasses methods of organized human activity. If the claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers fundamental economic practice, commercial or legal interaction or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "system/method of organized human activity" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
"[A]fter determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, 'we then ask, [w]hat else is there in the claims before us?"' MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis in MPEP) citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78. "What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm." SAP Inc. v. lnvestPic, LLV, Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). For step two, the examiner must "determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply describe [the] abstract method" and thus transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hutu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
A primary consideration when determining whether a claim recites "significantly more" than abstract idea is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.0S{d). "If the additional element (or combination of elements) is a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine and conventional in the field, for instance because it is an unconventional step that confines the claim to a particular useful application of the judicial exception, then this consideration favors eligibility. If, however, the additional element {or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility." Id.
The Federal Circuit has held that "[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination." Bahr, Robert (April 19, 2018). Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) citing Berkheimer at 1369. "As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memo [] clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III [of the memo]." Berkheimer Memo at 3 (emphasis in memo).
Generally, "[i]f a patent uses generic computer components to implement an invention, it fails to recite an inventive concept under Alice step two." West View Research v. Audi, CAFC Appeal Nos. 2016-1947-51 (Fed. Cir. 04/19/2017) citing Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that "generic computer components such as an 'interface,' 'network,' and 'database' ... do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement"; but see Bascom (finding that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the generic computer components, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end- users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user).
In accordance with the above guidance, the examiner has searched the claim(s) to determine whether there are any "additional elements" in the claims that constitute "inventive concept," thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Those "additional features" must be more than "well understood, routine, conventional activity." See Alice. To note, "under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered ... abstract idea [] cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility." Genetic Techs. Ltd v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981).
As an example, the Federal Circuit has indicated that "inventive concept" can be found where the claims indicate the technological steps that are undertaken to overcome the stated problem(s) identified in Applicant's originally-filed Specification. See Trading Techs. Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017); but see IV v. Erie Indemnity, No. 2016-1128 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017) ("The claims are not focused on how usage of the XML tags alters the database in a way that leads to an improvement in technology of computer databases, as in Enfish.") (emphasis in original) and IV. v. Capital One, Nos. 2016-1077 (Fed. Cir. March 7, 2017) ("Indeed, the claim language here provides only a result-oriented solution, with insufficient detail for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims 'so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem.')"). Furthermore, "[a]bstraction is avoided or overcome when a proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a whole." Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (emphasis added).
In the search for inventive concept, the Berkheimer Memo describes "an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in the MPEP as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
See Berkheimer Memo at 3-4.
Accordingly, the examiner refers to the following generically-recited computer elements with their associated functions (and associated factual finding(s)), which are considered, individually and in combination, to be routine, conventional, and well-understood:
“a method, comprising”,
“a system, comprising”
“a non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program that, when executed by a system including at least one processor, causes the system to perform operations comprising”
As set forth in MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. The Berkhiemer memo clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III the memo. As seen in paragraphs ([28, 99, 104, 111]) of the instant Specification and Symantec.. 838 F.3d at 1.321, 110 USPQ2d at. 1362, the elements are viewed to be well-understood, routine and conventional.
In sum, the Examiner finds that the claims "are directed to the use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any claim that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining the two." In re TLI Communications LLC, No. 2015-1372 (May 17, 2016). Similar to the claims in SAP v. lnvestPic, "[t]he claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter." Appeal No. 2017-2081 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, "the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm." Id. Accordingly, when considered individually and in ordered combination, the examiner finds the claims to be directed to in-eligible subject matter.
Next, it is determined whether the claim integrates the judicial expectation into a practical application by identifying whether “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether the integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application.
In this case, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial application into a practical application. The claim does not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field ; (ii) a "particular machine" to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other meaningful limitation.
The additional elements beyond the judicial exception are a system, a memory, at least one processor, a public safety answering point, and a non-transitory computer-readable medium encode with a computer program that, when executed by a system including at least one processor causes the system to perform operation. Using a computing device to identify and determine a value and disposition of an object is merely applying the judicial exception using a generic computing component. Additionally, the claim identifies and determines a value and disposition of an object - the claim does not improve the functioning of the computing device, or other technology or field.
The claims do not recite specific limitations (alone or when considered as an ordered combination) that were not well understood, routine, and conventional. As set forth in the Specification, the disclosed subject matter can be implemented as a method, apparatus, or article of manufacture using standard programming and/or engineering techniques to produce software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof to control a computer to implement the disclosed subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 include further recited limitations, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and the additional elements taken individually and in combination, do not contribute to an inventive concept, In other words, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 19 and 20 recite “The method computer-readable medium of Claim 15” should be – The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15 - Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (2023/0188648) in view of Zheng (2023/0199110).
As to claim 1, Khan teaches a method comprising:
performing a first determination that a first communication was placed from a telephone number but was not received by a public safety answering point (PSAP) (abstract, [0009] - in some implementations, the application server may determine that a failure occurred in an emergency call between a PSAP and a first user device associated with an emergency caller, and may identify, based on determining the failure, one of a first option, a second option, or a third option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller);
identifying the telephone number ([0016] - the application server 130 determines that the emergency caller set the first option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller. For example, prior to the emergency (e.g., when configuring the first user device 105-1), the emergency caller utilizes the first user device 105-1 to select the first option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller); and
performing a second determination whether a response to a second communication to the telephone number was received ([0010] - causing another bearer path to be established between the PSAP and a particular user device, of the set of user devices, that first answers the emergency callback; [0012-0013] - FIGS. 1A-1H are diagrams of an example associated with redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of an emergency caller; the PSAP 135 attempts an emergency call back to the emergency caller associated with the first user device 105-1; [0023] - the emergency caller utilizes the first user device 105-1 to select the second option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller; abstract - a bearer path to be established between the PSAP and the second user device for the emergency callback).
Khan does not explicitly discuss the first determination is at least in part based on the first list of placed calls made to the PSAP and a second list of received calls received by the PSAP.
However, since Khan teaches the PSAP 135 includes one or more devices capable of receiving, generating, storing, processing, providing, and/or routing information. The PSAP 135 includes a communication device and/or a computing device. For example, the PSAP 135 includes a call center where emergency calls (e.g., for law enforcement services, fire services, ambulance services, and/or the like) initiated by any mobile or landline subscriber are terminated ([0048]); and prior to the emergency (e.g., when configuring the first user device 105-1), the emergency caller may utilize the first user device 105-1 to select the second option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller. In some implementations, when the second option is identified, application server 130 may determine that the emergency callback is to be sequentially redirected to a set of user devices 105 (e.g., the second user device 105-2 and the third user device 105-3) associated with a set of contacts (e.g., the first alternative contact and the second alternative contact) of the emergency caller ([0023]). It would have been obvious that the first list of placed calls made to the PSAP and second list received calls that were received by the PSAP could be the same list for determination that a first communication was placed from a telephone number but was not received by a PSAP and a second list of received calls received by the PSAP.
Zheng teaches when an E911 call is received, the GMLC 130 according to implementations herein first queries the redirect list for an identifier of the wireless device ([0019]); and selectively route E911 calls placed by user equipment to a public safety access point (PSAP) or an answering line based on the redirect list (claim 17). The IMS 120 instructs the GMLC 130 to add a wireless device to the redirect list if the IMS receives a first USSD code from the wireless device. An example USSD message generated by the wireless device 110 is “*4652”, where 4652 is a USSD code defined within the telecommunications network to cause the wireless device to be added to the redirect list. A second USSD code causes the IMS 120 to then instruct the GMLC 130 to remove the wireless device from the redirect list. The IMS 120 can also support codes that cause additional functionality that causes the IMS to output the redirection status of a particular device, or a code that causes the IMS to output identifiers of all devices currently included on the redirect list ([0020]). Hence, updated redirect list from the first redirect list.
It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Zheng into the teachings of Khan for the purpose of improving public safety, operational efficiency, and accountability to enhance emergency response, quality assurance and training.
As to claims 2, 9, and 16, Khan teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the medium of claim 15 further comprising determining a second communication, at least in part based on a determination that the response was not received ([0009] - determine that a failure occurred in an emergency call between a PSAP and a first user device associated with an emergency caller, and may identify, based on determining the failure, one of a first option, a second option, or a third option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller; [0008, 0011] - current mechanisms to determine whether a call termination is a PSAP callback consume computing resources (e.g., processing resources, memory resources, communication resources, and/or the like), networking resources, transportation resources, and/or other resources associated with failing to provide an emergency callback to an emergency caller).
As to claims 3, 10, and 17, Khan teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the medium of claim 15 further comprising connecting the second communication to a call taker ([0017] - the emergency caller failed to answer the emergency callback and that the emergency callback is being redirected to an alternative contact of the emergency caller; [0015-0016] - the application server 130 identifies, based on determining or receiving a notification of the failure, one of a first option, a second option, or a third option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller; an alert tone to be played by the second user device 105-2 and a caller display name of “PSAP operator” so that the alternative contact knows that the call is from the operator of the PSAP [0020]).
As to claims 4, 11, and 18, Khan teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the medium of claim 15 further comprising obtaining, from a database, a list of placed calls made to the PSAP ([0048] - The PSAP 135 includes one or more devices capable of receiving, generating, storing, processing, providing, and/or routing information. The PSAP 135 includes a communication device and/or a computing device. For example, the PSAP 135 includes a call center where emergency calls (e.g., for law enforcement services, fire services, ambulance services, and/or the like; claim 1) initiated by any mobile or landline subscriber are terminated); and obtaining a list of received calls that were received by the PSAP ([0009, 0015] - the application server determines that a failure occurred in an emergency call between a PSAP and a first user device associated with an emergency caller, and may identify, based on determining the failure, one of a first option, a second option, or a third option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller; [0048] - The PSAP 135 includes one or more devices capable of receiving, generating, storing, processing, providing, and/or routing information. The PSAP 135 includes a communication device and/or a computing device. For example, the PSAP 135 includes a call center where emergency calls (e.g., for law enforcement services, fire services, ambulance services, and/or the like) initiated by any mobile or landline subscriber are terminated; claim 1).
Khan does not explicitly discuss the first determination is at least in part based on the first list of placed calls made to the PSAP and a second list of received calls received by the PSAP.
However, Khan teaches the PSAP 135 includes one or more devices capable of receiving, generating, storing, processing, providing, and/or routing information. The PSAP 135 includes a communication device and/or a computing device. For example, the PSAP 135 includes a call center where emergency calls (e.g., for law enforcement services, fire services, ambulance services, and/or the like) initiated by any mobile or landline subscriber are terminated ([0048]); and prior to the emergency (e.g., when configuring the first user device 105-1), the emergency caller may utilize the first user device 105-1 to select the second option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller. In some implementations, when the second option is identified, application server 130 may determine that the emergency callback is to be sequentially redirected to a set of user devices 105 (e.g., the second user device 105-2 and the third user device 105-3) associated with a set of contacts (e.g., the first alternative contact and the second alternative contact) of the emergency caller ([0023]). It would have been obvious that the first list of placed calls made to the PSAP and second list received calls that were received by the PSAP could be the same list for determination that a first communication was placed from a telephone number but was not received by a PSAP and a second list of received calls received by the PSAP.
Zheng teaches when an E911 call is received, the GMLC 130 according to implementations herein first queries the redirect list for an identifier of the wireless device ([0019]); and selectively route E911 calls placed by user equipment to a public safety access point (PSAP) or an answering line based on the redirect list (claim 17). The IMS 120 instructs the GMLC 130 to add a wireless device to the redirect list if the IMS receives a first USSD code from the wireless device. An example USSD message generated by the wireless device 110 is “*4652”, where 4652 is a USSD code defined within the telecommunications network to cause the wireless device to be added to the redirect list. A second USSD code causes the IMS 120 to then instruct the GMLC 130 to remove the wireless device from the redirect list. The IMS 120 can also support codes that cause additional functionality that causes the IMS to output the redirection status of a particular device, or a code that causes the IMS to output identifiers of all devices currently included on the redirect list ([0020]).
It would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Zheng into the teachings of Khan for the purpose of improving public safety, operational efficiency, and accountability to enhance emergency response, quality assurance and training.
As to claims 5 and 12, Khan teaches the method of claim 4 and the system of claim 11, wherein the database is a DBH, VoIP, or a wireline database ([0048] - The PSAP 135 includes one or more devices capable of receiving, generating, storing, processing, providing, and/or routing information. The PSAP 135 includes a communication device and/or a computing device. For example, the PSAP 135 includes a call center where emergency calls (e.g., for law enforcement services, fire services, ambulance services, and/or the like) initiated by any mobile or landline subscriber are terminated).
As to claims 6, 13, and 19, Khan teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the medium of claim 15 further comprising determining a call taker for a return communication; and transmitting communication information to the call taker ([0017] - the emergency caller failed to answer the emergency callback and that the emergency callback is being redirected to an alternative contact of the emergency caller; [0021-0022] - an alert tone to be played by the second user device 105-2 (e.g., to obtain the attention of the alternative contact); an alert tone to be played by the second user device 105-2 and a caller display name of “PSAP operator” so that the alternative contact knows that the call is from the operator of the PSAP [0020]). Furthermore, call taker, in very limited, informal, or non-emergency texts, a friend or family members might be asked to answer calls for a specific purpose.
As to claims 7, 14, and 20, Khan teaches the method of claim 1, the system of claim 8, and the medium of claim 15 further comprising determining the telephone number and a location of the first communication ([0016] - the application server 130 determines that the emergency caller set the first option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller. For example, prior to the emergency (e.g., when configuring the first user device 105-1), the emergency caller utilizes the first user device 105-1 to select the first option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller; [0039] - the emergency file may include an image of the emergency caller's vehicles and license plates, an image of the emergency caller's face, an image of the emergency caller's dog, a home address of the emergency caller (e.g., an apartment number that identifies a floor and an apartment of the emergency caller), a work address of the emergency caller (e.g., a building, an office number, and a floor of the building where the emergency caller works)).
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, Khan teaches a system comprising a memory that stores at least one instruction and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction; a computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program when executed by a system including at least one processor ([0066, 0068]; claim 15).
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection(s).
Applicant argues that “A human cannot determine whether a call was placed from a telephone number but was not received by a public safety answering point without access to a comparison of telecommunications system records” and the claims integrated abstract idea into a practical application by improving emergency telecommunications systems to ensure callers whose communications were lost during PSAP outages can be contacted. Examiner respectfully submits that each of the independent claims recites steps that result in determining a call was not received by a PSAP, identifying the telephone number of the call and determining whether a callback to the telephone number was received can be performed by reading telecommunications systems records. All of the recited steps are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the limitations under the organized human activity. The applicant might have a point of this was done in real time, but there is no requirement in the claim as is for that.
Applicant argues that “The “failure” in Khan is about the PSAP’s callback not being answered by the caller, NOT about an initial call from the caller not being received by the PSAP”. Examiner respectfully submits that may be in one of the embodiment and Khan also teaches in some implementations, the application server may determine that a failure occurred in an emergency call between a PSAP and a first user device associated with an emergency caller, and may identify, based on determining the failure, one of a first option, a second option, or a third option for redirecting an emergency callback to a contact of the emergency caller (abstract, [0009]); hence the failure may due to the communication not received by the PSAP.
Applicant argues that Khan, however, redirects callbacks to “alternate contacts” of the emergency caller – family members of friends, not to PSAP call takers. Examiner respectfully submits that, first, claim 1 recites “…a second communication to the telephone number was received” which is a second communication callback to the telephone number of the caller; second, call taker, in very limited, informal, or non-emergency texts, a friend or family members might be asked to answer calls for a specific purpose. Khan teaches an alert tone to be played by the second user device 105-2 and a caller display name of “PSAP operator” so that the alternative contact knows that the call is from the operator of the PSAP [0020].
Conclusion
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUYNH H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7489. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. 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.
/QUYNH H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights