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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 1, “providing a further voice connection to the secondary control center” should read “providing the further voice connection to the secondary control center” Appropriate correction is required.
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:
(A) 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;
(B) 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
(C) 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: a duration measurement module to measure a duration and the emergency call control unit to execute in claims 21-25 and the emergency call control unit to automatically provide in claim 27.
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.
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 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 21-25 & 27 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.
Claim limitation “An emergency call control unit for a vehicle, the emergency call unit comprising a duration measurement module to measure a duration of a provided voice connection, 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 adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification states the claimed function of measure a duration of a provided voice connection by “duration measurement module.” There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform a measure a duration of a provided voice connection. The use of the term “duration measurement module” is not adequate structure for performing a measure duration because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, the term “duration measurement module” refer to measure a duration of voice connection can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, a processor, a transceiver, specific circuitry, telematic control unit. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which filter structure or structures perform(s) the claimed function.
The term “emergency call control unit” invokes 35 U.S.C 112(f) because the term “unit” is a generic nonce term that does not connote sufficiently definite structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The specification fails to disclosed adequate corresponding structure for performing the claimed function associated with the emergency call control unit. Specifically, the specification merely refers to an “emergency call control unit” without identifying any particular hardware, circuitry, processor, algorithm, telematics control unit architecture, or the structure that performs the claimed function, Accordingly, the specification fails to clearly link or associate adequate corresponding structure with the claimed function.
Therefore, the claims 21-25 & 27 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) 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;
(b) 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
(c) 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:
(a) 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
(b) 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 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 21-25 & 27 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. As describe above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of measure a duration of a provided voice connection and the emergency call control unit. 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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 11,17, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mader et al. (US PGPUB 20140187191 A1) in view of Boltz et al. (US 6233445 B1).
Regarding Claim 11, Mader teaches A method for placing an emergency call of a vehicle, comprising (see section [0033] FIG. 1A “emergency call with the location of the accident vehicle 110”),
detecting, by an emergency call control unit of the vehicle an accident event (see sections [0032], FIG. 1B “a vehicle 110 contains the in-vehicle AEEN device (control unit )120 capable of determining if an emergency event has occurred”),
by the emergency call control unit, automatically placing an emergency call based on the detected accident event and providing a voice connection to a primary control center (see sections [0032], [0033] & FIGs 1A,2A “a vehicle 110 contains the in-vehicle AEEN device 120 capable of determining if an emergency event has occurred, and if so, is capable of utilizing an integrated, preferably non-activated, cellphone to place a direct call to a 911 operator at a PSAP dispatch center”),
measuring, by a duration measurement module of the emergency call control unit, a duration of the provided voice connection (see section [0056], [0057] “read as the system measures the duration X (any) “duration measurement module”, of the 911 call”, which can also be implemented as a SW routine”),
automatically re-providing, by the emergency call control unit, the voice connection when the provided voice connection terminates and the duration of the provided voice connection measured by the duration measurement module is less than a predetermined minimum duration (see sections [0056], [0057] FIGs. 4A ,4B “If the 911 call duration is less than a threshold of X minutes, for example X=3 minutes, logic flow 485 returns to process module 360 which initiates audible alerts of an impending 911 re-dial. If the CANCEL 911 status is not received 364 logic flow 370 sends a re-dial 911 command to process module 390 which initiates an additional 911 call. This 911 re-dial procedure protects against inadvertent termination of the call by the 911 operator or by the equipment at the PSAP”),
Mader fails to explicitly suggest by the emergency call control unit, analyzing a call during the provided voice connection and providing a further voice connection to a secondary control center when the analyzed call includes a pre-recorded announcement of the primary control center.
However, In an analogous field of endeavor, Boltz teaches by the emergency call control unit, analyzing a call during the provided voice connection and providing a further voice connection to a secondary control center when the analyzed call includes a pre-recorded announcement of the primary control center (see sections of [Cols- 4,5 & lines-52-67 & 1-25 FIG. 4 “read as A first emergency call is received by a PSAP. Information regarding the incident is used to generate a pre-recorded announcement or operator voice recording, be connected to the next available operator, or even interrupt the announcement message and immediately be connected to the next available PSAP operator”).
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 modify Mader with Boltz to include by the emergency call control unit, analyzing a call during the provided voice connection and providing a further voice connection to a secondary control center when the analyzed call includes a pre-recorded announcement of the primary control center thereby, to avoid or detour the reported site or location for traffic purposes.as taught by Boltz (see section [Col 6, lines 10-11]).
Regarding claim 17, Mader in view of Bolt teaches all the limitation of claim 11, In addition, Mader teaches further comprising re-providing, by the emergency call control unit, the further voice connection when the provided further voice connection terminates and a duration of the provided further voice connection measured by the duration measurement module is less than the predetermined minimum duration (see sections [0056], [0057] FIG. 4B “If the 911 call duration is less than a threshold of X minutes, for example X=3 minutes, logic flow 485 returns to process module 360 which initiates audible alerts of an impending 911 re-dial. If the CANCEL 911 status is not received 364 logic flow 370 sends a re-dial 911 command to process module 390 which initiates an additional 911 call. This 911 re-dial procedure protects against inadvertent termination of the call by the 911 operator or by the equipment at the PSAP”).
Regarding claim 21, Mader in view of Bolt teaches all the limitation of claim 11, In addition, Mader teaches the emergency call unit comprising a duration measurement module to measure a duration of a provided voice connection, the emergency call control unit to execute a method as claimed in claim 11 (see section [0056], [0057] “read as the system measures the duration X (any) “duration measurement module”, of the 911 call operator, If the call duration is shorter than a threshold time, the system assumes the call may have been disconnected and automatically initiates re-dial unless cancelled”).
Regarding claim 28, Mader in view of Bolt teaches all the limitation of claim 21, In addition, Mader teaches A vehicle comprising an emergency call control unit as claimed in claim 21 (see sections [0032], FIG. 1B “a vehicle 110 contains the in-vehicle AEEN device (control unit )120 capable of determining if an emergency event has occurred”).
Claims 12, 18, 22, 26, 27, 29 & 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mader et al. (US PGPUB 20140187191 A1) in view of Boltz et al. (US 6233445 B1) as applied to claims 11 and 21 above and further in view of Delker et al. (US 7822391 B1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mader and Boltz teaches all the limitation of claim 11. The combination of Mader and Boltz fails to teaches wherein the automatically re-providing includes providing a predetermined number of unsuccessful connection attempts.
Delker teaches wherein the automatically re-providing includes providing a predetermined number of unsuccessful connection attempts (see section column-2, lines [23-35] “read as mobile device attempts to establish a voice call with emergency service and determines whether the attempt is successful, if not device performs repeated try attempts, which may include a predetermined number of attempts. One or more repeated connection attempts before determining that the call attempt has failed”).
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 modify Mader and Boltz with Delker to include wherein the automatically re-providing includes providing a predetermined number of unsuccessful connection attempts thereby, in order to improve the likelihood of successfully establishing an emergency call before declaring a connection failure as taught by Delker (see section column 2 lines 23-35).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker teaches all the limitations of claim 12. In addition, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker teaches further comprising re-providing, by the emergency call control unit, the further voice connection when the provided further voice connection terminates and a duration of the provided further voice connection measured by the duration measurement module is less than the predetermined minimum duration (see sections of Mader [0056], [0057] FIG. 4B “If the 911 call duration is less than a threshold of X minutes, for example X=3 minutes, logic flow 485 returns to process module 360 which initiates audible alerts of an impending 911 re-dial. If the CANCEL 911 status is not received 364 logic flow 370 sends a re-dial 911 command to process module 390 which initiates an additional 911 call. This 911 re-dial procedure protects against inadvertent termination of the call by the 911 operator or by the equipment at the PSAP”).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker teaches all the limitations of claim 12. In addition, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker teaches the emergency call unit comprising a duration measurement module to measure a duration of a provided voice connection, the emergency call control unit to execute a method as claimed in claim 12 (see section of Mader [0056], [0057] “read as the system measures the duration X (any) “duration measurement module”, of the 911 call operator, If the call duration is shorter than a threshold time, the system assumes the call may have been disconnected and automatically initiates re-dial unless cancelled.”).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Mader and Boltz teaches all the limitations of claim 21. The combination fails to teach having a variable configuration for determining a number of unsuccessful connection attempts for re-providing a voice connection
Delker teaches having a variable configuration for determining a number of unsuccessful connection attempts for re-providing a voice connection (see section column-2, lines [23-35] “read as mobile device attempts to establish a voice call with emergency service and determines whether the attempt is successful, if not device performs repeated try attempts, which may include a predetermined number of attempts. One or more repeated connection attempts before determining that the call attempt has failed”).
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 modify Mader and Boltz with Delker to include wherein the automatically re-providing includes providing a predetermined number of unsuccessful connection attempts thereby, in order to improve the likelihood of successfully establishing an emergency call before declaring a connection failure as taught by Delker (see section column 2 lines 23-35).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker teaches all the limitations of claim 26. The combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker further teaches wherein the emergency call control unit to optionally or automatically provide a voice connection to a primary control center and/or to a secondary control center (see sections of Mader [0032], [0033] & FIGs 1A,2A “a vehicle 110 contains the in-vehicle AEEN device 120 capable of determining if an emergency event has occurred, and if so, is capable of utilizing an integrated, preferably non-activated, cellphone to place a direct call to a 911 operator at a PSAP dispatch center”).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker teaches all the limitations of claim 26. The combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker further teaches a vehicle comprising an emergency call control unit as claimed in claim 21 (see sections of Mader [0032], [0033], FIG. 1B “a vehicle 110 contains the in-vehicle AEEN device (control unit )120 capable of determining if an emergency event has occurred”).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker teaches all the limitations of claim 27. The combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker further teaches a vehicle comprising an emergency call control unit as claimed in claim 27 (see sections of Mader [0032], [0033], FIG. 1B “a vehicle 110 contains the in-vehicle AEEN device (control unit )120 capable of determining if an emergency event has occurred”).
Claims 13, 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mader et al. (US PGPUB 20140187191 A1) in view of Boltz et al. (US 6233445 B1) and further in view of Delker et al. (US 7822391 B1) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Cepuran et al. (US 8417212 B2).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and Delker teaches all the limitations of claim 12 The combination fails to teaches a further voice connection to the secondary control center after the predetermined number of unsuccessful connection attempts.
Cepuran teaches a further voice connection to the secondary control center after the predetermined number of unsuccessful connection attempts (see section columns 6,7, lines 63-67, lines 1-31 “read as telematics unit (control unit) service provide after one or more retry attempts, it switches to an eCall emergency service mode. The system then places an emergency call trough another available eCall provider or PSAP and sends emergency data”).
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 modify Mader and Boltz and Delker with Cepuran to include further voice connection to the secondary control center after the predetermined number of unsuccessful connection attempts thereby, using telematics unit that is capable of operating in more than one service mode so that emergency calls can be placed with more than one service provider. as taught by Cepuran (see section [Col-3, lines-3-7]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mader, Boltz, Delker and Cepuran teaches all the limitations of claim 13. The combination of Mader, Boltz, Delker and Cepuran further teaches the method, comprising re-providing, by the emergency call control unit, the further voice connection when the provided further voice connection terminates and a duration of the provided further voice connection measured by the duration measurement module is less than the predetermined minimum duration (see sections of Mader [0056], [0057] FIG. 4B “If the 911 call duration is less than a threshold of X minutes, for example X=3 minutes, logic flow 485 returns to process module 360 which initiates audible alerts of an impending 911 re-dial. If the CANCEL 911 status is not received 364 logic flow 370 sends a re-dial 911 command to process module 390 which initiates an additional 911 call. This 911 re-dial procedure protects against inadvertent termination of the call by the 911 operator or by the equipment at the PSAP”).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Mader, Boltz, Delker and Cepuran teaches all the limitations of claim 13. The combination of Mader, Boltz, Delker and Cepuran teaches the emergency call unit comprising a duration measurement module to measure a duration of a provided voice connection, the emergency call control unit to execute a method as claimed in claim 13 (see sections of Mader [0056], [0057] “read as the system measures the duration X (any) “duration measurement module”, of the 911 call operator, If the call duration is shorter than a threshold time, the system assumes the call may have been disconnected and automatically initiates re-dial unless cancelled.”).
Claims 14, 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mader et al. (US PGPUB 20140187191 A1) in view of Boltz et al. (US 6233445 B1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of ZAJAC et al. (US PGPUB 20240048655 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mader and Boltz teaches all the limitation of claim 11. The combination fails to teaches wherein the analyzing includes analyzing, by an artificial neural network of the emergency call control unit, the call.
ZAJAC teaches wherein the analyzing includes analyzing, by an artificial neural network of the emergency call control unit, the call (see sections [0042], [0063] “read as to analyze video emergency call, detected object/events, and call-related context. Based on the analysis, the system automatically determines which video emergency call should be displayed, and can dynamically switch to a more relevant video feed when needed”).
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 modify Mader and Boltz with ZAJAC to include wherein the analyzing includes analyzing, by an artificial neural network of the emergency call control unit, the call thereby, to perhaps by raising it to a maximum value or next highest value over all current video emergency calls associated with the incident as taught by ZAJAC (see section [0063]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and ZAJAC teaches all the limitations of claim 14. The combination of Mader, Boltz, and ZAJAC further teaches the method comprising re-providing, by the emergency call control unit, the further voice connection when the provided further voice connection terminates and a duration of the provided further voice connection measured by the duration measurement module is less than the predetermined minimum duration (see sections of Mader [0056], [0057] FIG. 4B “If the 911 call duration is less than a threshold of X minutes, for example X=3 minutes, logic flow 485 returns to process module 360 which initiates audible alerts of an impending 911 re-dial. If the CANCEL 911 status is not received 364 logic flow 370 sends a re-dial 911 command to process module 390 which initiates an additional 911 call. This 911 re-dial procedure protects against inadvertent termination of the call by the 911 operator or by the equipment at the PSAP”).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and ZAJAC teaches all the limitations of claim 14, In addition, the combination of Mader, Boltz, and ZAJAC teaches the emergency call unit comprising a duration measurement module to measure a duration of a provided voice connection, the emergency call control unit to execute a method as claimed in claim 14 (see sections of Mader [0056], [0057] “read as the system measures the duration X (any) “duration measurement module”, of the 911 call operator, If the call duration is shorter than a threshold time, the system assumes the call may have been disconnected and automatically initiates re-dial unless cancelled.”).
Claims 15 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mader et al. (US PGPUB 20140187191 A1) in view of Boltz et al. (US 6233445 B1) and further in view of Delker et al. (US 7822391 B1) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of ZAJAC et al. (US PGPUB 20240048655 A1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mader, Boltz and Delker teaches all the limitation of claim 12, The combination of Mader and Boltz and Delker fails to teaches wherein the analyzing includes analyzing, by an artificial neural network of the emergency call control unit, the call.
ZAJAC teaches wherein the analyzing includes analyzing, by an artificial neural network of the emergency call control unit, the call (see sections [0042], [0063] “read as to analyze video emergency call, detected object/events, and call-related context. Based on the analysis, the system automatically determines which video emergency call should be displayed, and can dynamically switch to a more relevant video feed when needed”).
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 modify Mader, Boltz and Delker with ZAJAC to include wherein the analyzing includes analyzing, by an artificial neural network of the emergency call control unit, the call thereby, to perhaps by raising it to a maximum value or next highest value over all current video emergency calls associated with the incident as taught by ZAJAC (see section [0063]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Mader, Boltz, Delker and ZAJAC teaches all the limitations of claim 15, In addition, the combination of Mader, Boltz, Delker and ZAJAC teaches the emergency call unit comprising a duration measurement module to measure a duration of a provided voice connection, the emergency call control unit to execute a method as claimed in claim 15 (see section of Mader [0056], [0057] “read as the system measures the duration X (any) “duration measurement module”, of the 911 call operator, If the call duration is shorter than a threshold time, the system assumes the call may have been disconnected and automatically initiates re-dial unless cancelled.”).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mader et al. (US PGPUB 20140187191 A1) in view of Boltz et al. (US 6233445 B1) and further in view of Delker et al. (US 7822391 B1) and further in view of Cepuran et al. (US 8417212 B2) as applied to claims 13 above and further in view of ZAJAC et al. (US PGPUB 20240048655 A1).
Regarding claim 16 the combination of Mader and Boltz, Delker and Cepuran teaches all the limitation of claim 13. The combination of Mader and Boltz, Delker and Cepuran fails to teach wherein the analyzing includes analyzing, by an artificial neural network of the emergency call control unit, the call.
ZAJAC teaches wherein the analyzing includes analyzing, by an artificial neural network of the emergency call control unit, the call (see sections [0042], [0063] “read as to analyze video emergency call, detected object/events, and call-related context. Based on the analysis, the system automatically determines which video emergency call should be displayed, and can dynamically switch to a more relevant video feed when needed”).
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 modify Mader and Boltz, Delker and Cepuran with ZAJAC to include wherein the analyzing includes analyzing, by an artificial neural network of the emergency call control unit, the call thereby, to perhaps by raising it to a maximum value or next highest value over all current video emergency calls associated with the incident as taught by ZAJAC (see section [0063]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARTIBEN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 to 5:00 alternate Friday off.
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, Addy Anthony 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.
/ARTIBEN JAIMIN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2645
/ANTHONY S ADDY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights