CTNF 18/839,761 CTNF 101709 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 statement (IDS) submitted on 08/20/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 2 is 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. Regarding claim 2, the dependent claim recites “and connects the notification to a connection place different from the emergency notification receiving organization…” and therefore creating a deficiency of language. It is unclear what “connection place different…” is referring to. More specifically, “emergency notification receiving organization” is a known and well defined term in the art. However, not specifying where the notification is received if it is not “urgent,” and simply stating said non-urgent “notification” is received at a “connection place different from the emergency notification receiving organization,” makes this claim language indefinite. In other words, the dependent claim should recite “and connects the notification to a consultation counter receiving organization in a case where it is determined that there is no urgency in the notification,” or alike. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 3, and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SWAMY (US 2023/0360151 A1, hereinafter Swamy) . Regarding claim 1, Swamy teaches a notification control device comprising: a detection circuit ([0096] multi-tenanted intelligent platform (MTIP) (106), MTIP read as notification control device, may contain a plurality of processing circuits, which may contain the processing circuits shown in FIG. 6/7) configured to detect a notification from a communication terminal owned by a notifier; a reception circuit configured to receive an input of information related to notification content from the notifier in accordance with the detection of the notification ([0034] referring to FIG. 2, multi-tenanted intelligent platform (MTIP) (106), MTIP read as notification control device, is capable of detecting a reception of a notification, for example the notification is sent "through the communication module (102) and the multi-tenanted intelligent platform (106), wherein the metadata (metadata read as notification) is sent by the first responder (107) through the mobile application (101)," i.e. detecting and receiving a notification from a notifier) ; a determination circuit configured to determine, from the input information related to the notification content (MTIP (106) comprises a plurality of determination circuits to make a plurality of determinations based on the user input information related to the metadata, metadata read as notification content, such as [0077] and [0080] the AI and Machine Vision based Image Analysis and Interpretation Layer 420 and the pre-processing engine 622 depicted in FIG. 6/7) , whether the notification is urgent ([0058] referring to FIG. 3(a), MTIP (106) may determine priority, step (304) and then notifications can be sent, step (303), to the various users that includes priority information, i.e. flagging notifications based on priority level, wherein [0061] explains "the objective identify the highest risk damage events first before proceeding to evaluate other events," i.e. the ability for the highest priority events to be urgent) ; and a control circuit configured to control a place where the notification is to be connected based on whether the notification is urgent (Referring to FIG. 4, the MTIP (106) (depicted as the iRestore server) is capable of controlling where the metadata, metadata read as notification, is to be connected to, i.e. which emergency service to connect the notification to) . Regarding claim 3, Swamy teaches the reception circuit receives an input of at least one of a purpose of the notification and a type of an event that triggered the notification ([0047] "users must either be pre-authorized by the utility tenant or must request authorization from the utility admin in the admin portal (103b). The user (107) can also indicate other event data, such as an option for if the road is blocked and if police and/or fire are standing by. Other event data can be added as well, such as equipment ID (pole/device number), and first responder comments. It is noted that the damage report only requires general information from the first responder about the event, and the first responder does not need to indicate any detailed technical information about the damage," i.e. general information about the event via comments read as type of an event) , and the determination circuit determines whether the notification is urgent according to the received purpose or the received type of the event (Fig. 5 depicts MTIP (106) (depicted as the iRestore server) determining priority level based on the event type and associated metadata for the downed-wire scenario shown) . Regarding claim 6, Swamy teaches an information acquisition circuit configured to acquire position information from the communication terminal and a terminal different from the communication terminal ([0033] "a mobile application is installed onto the first responder Global Positioning System (GPS) enabled mobile device to send geo-coded damage imaging and associated metadata," i.e. the received metadata has GPS capabilities, GPS capabilities read as position information) , wherein the information acquisition circuit acquires information related to the notification from another communication terminal present in a predetermined range from a position indicated by position information of the communication terminal ([0070] the metadata may also work with "commercially available external GPS receivers to enhance the location accuracy of the first responder damage report," furthermore [0071] describes "can also optionally work with commercially available external Indoor location systems to enhance the location accuracy," i.e. indoor read as predetermined range) . Regarding claim 7, Swamy teaches the information acquisition circuit transmits a notification for receiving an input of information related to the notification to the another communication terminal before the notification is connected, and acquires the information related to the notification as a response to the notification (referring to FIG. 2, the metadata/notification uploaded from user 107 is transmitted to the MTIP 106 (notification control device), wherein the metadata is further transmitted to a central web portal (103) running on a control room personal computer running a Javascript capable browser or similar environment (105), wherein the web portal 103 may "dynamically notify appropriate utility personnel (112) via text message, email notification or within the damage viewing application on the field personnel's mobile device (110) so they are best able to respond and repair the damage,” [abstract] and shown in FIG. 4) . Regarding claim 8, Swamy teaches an output control circuit configured to output information in which a position of the another communication terminal and the acquired information related to the notification are associated with each other ([0021] "context and relevance analysis within the multi-tenanted intelligent platform takes into account the type of damage, its severity, the types of resource needed for repair, their proximity to the damage site before notifying the closest and most appropriate workers of the damage near them," i.e. the location of the appropriate workforce to respond to the notification may be associated with the location/proximity/grid of the notification itself) . Regarding claim 9, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1. Regarding claim 10, the claimed limitations of claim are rejected as the same reasons as set forth in claim 1, further in view of Swamy teaches a tangible and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the steps- ([0096] "the system and method of the present invention include operation by one or more processing devices, including the mobile devices (104), MTIP (106), control room personal computer running a Javascript capable browser or similar environment (105) interacting with the web portal (103) and with the communication module (102). It is noted that the processing devices can be any suitable device, such as a computer, server, processor, microprocessor, PC, tablet, smartphone, or the like," and "the information may be stored on a computer hard drive, memory, or on any other appropriate data storage device, which can be located at or in communication with the processing device," i.e. memory storing a program to execute the steps recited in claim 1) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWAMY (US 2023/0360151 A1, hereinafter Swamy) in view of HE (US 2012/0044938 A1, hereinafter He) . Regarding claim 2, Swamy teaches the control circuit connects the notification to an emergency notification receiving organization in a case where it is determined that there is urgency in the notification (Described in claim 1 and depicted n FIG. 4, the MTIP (106) may control where the notification is connected to based on urgency/priority level) . Swamy is not relied on for the claim language connects the notification to a connection place different from the emergency notification receiving organization in a case where it is determined that there is no urgency in the notification. However, He teaches [abstract] a method for handling an emergency service(s) request in a network communication. He also teaches connects the notification to a connection place different from the emergency notification receiving organization in a case where it is determined that there is no urgency in the notification ([0023] "the network side may perform a normal resource allocation when the network side receives the request message and determines that the message is a request for emergency service; and [0024] the network side may allocate resource to the emergency service from the reserved resources when the normal resource allocation is failed," i.e. if the notification and request for network resource allocation is not marked as an emergency, the network will provide the notification with network slices separate from those reserved for emergency services, i.e. "a connection place different from the emergency notification") . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Swamy to include “a connection place different from the emergency notification,” as taught by He, in order to [0031] solve the problem of handling the emergency service in a network with an independent bearer-control-layer entity, and to guarantee the connectivity and the resource in the network when the emergency service is requested, and [0032] reduce as much as possible the influence of emergency service on other higher-priority services during resource preemption . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWAMY (US 2023/0360151 A1, hereinafter Swamy) in view of DIZENGOF et al. (US 2018/0288224 A1, hereinafter Dizengof) . Regarding claim 4, Swamy is not relied on for the claim language the reception circuit receives an input of presence or absence of an injured person, and the determination circuit determines whether the notification is urgent according to the presence or absence of the injured person. However, Dizengof teaches [abstract] a method of detecting and prioritizing incoming emergency calls at a dispatch center. Dizengof also teaches the reception circuit receives an input of presence or absence of an injured person, and the determination circuit determines whether the notification is urgent according to the presence or absence of the injured person ([0124] describes "the calls priority manager 270 may assign a low priority to incoming emergency calls corresponding to potential emergency events of lesser consequences, for example, public property vandalism, a car accident with no injuries, a lost pet and/or the like," furthermore [0121] describes "the calls priority manager 270 may estimate a certain potential emergency event as a terror attack. In another example, using the machine learning algorithm(s) applied to the environment parameter(s), for example, a car wreck, cries for help from a wounded person(s) and/or the like, the calls priority manager 270 may estimate a certain potential emergency event as a car accident with injured person(s)."i.e. the calls priority manager 270 may determine a higher or lower priority level of the emergency event based on received information of an injured person) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Swamy to include an input of presence or absence of an injured person, and use said input for prioritization/urgency calculations, as taught by Dizengof, in order to [0025] improve the ability of the dispatcher(s) to understand (grasp) the emergency event, its nature, severity, implications and/or the like, and further reduce the response time and/or improve the response provided by the dispatcher(s) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SWAMY (US 2023/0360151 A1, hereinafter Swamy) in view of Pellegrini al. (US 2022/0051548 A1, hereinafter Pellegrini) . Regarding claim 5, Swamy teaches the determination circuit determines whether information indicating a notification source of the notification is included in a list ([Claim 1/13] a central web portal includes a management list views to manage users, privileges and notification rules and jurisdictions) . Swamy is not relied on for the claim language the control circuit performs control so as not to connect the notification to an emergency notification receiving organization in a case where the information indicating the notification source is included in the list. However, Pellegrini teaches [0035] methods for providing alarm data to an emergency network entity within an emergency network infrastructure, and for verifying the alarms to avoid dispatch of emergency responders based on false alarms. Pellegrini also teaches the control circuit performs control so as not to connect the notification to an emergency notification receiving organization in a case where the information indicating the notification source is included in the list ([0215] referring to FIG. 24, "if the text message response received in decision block 2419 indicates that the alarm is a false alarm, then in operation block 2413 the alarm signal processor 300 flags the alarm as a false alarm and deletes the alarm from the emergency network queue, or does not push the alarm to the emergency network," i.e. not providing services to a notification) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Swamy to include the ability to not serve a notification in association with a list, as taught by Pellegrini, in order to [0053] help facilitate an emergency network entity operator's workflow by reducing the number of apparently unrelated events. References Cited Swamy, Deepak (2023). Self-customizing, multi-tenanted mobile system and method for digitally gathering and disseminating real-time visual intelligence on utility asset damage enabling automated priority analysis and enhanced utility outage response (US 2023/0360151 A1). Filed 2023-04-24. (Priority 07/25/2016) Dizengof, Alexander et al. (2018). Prioritizing incoming emergency calls received from a plurality of client devices (US 2018/0288224 A1). Filed 2018-03-28. Pellegrini, Riccardo et al. (2022). Apparatus, systems and methods for providing alarm and sensor data to emergency networks (US 2022/0051548 A1). Filed 2021-08-17. He, Yungu (2012). Method for handling emergency service in network communication (US 2012/0044938 A1). Filed 2011-09-22. Other Pertinent References 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Philbin, Matthew Joseph (2017). System and method for initiating an emergency response (US 2017/0289350 A1). Filed 2017-03-29. Discloses a method for initiating a personal emergency response. (abstract) Lin, Pingyu et al. (2019). Emergency notification device (US 2019/0075444 A1). Filed 2017-03-29. Discloses an emergency notification device for notifying of emergency information capable of input/output of voice via the communication terminal. (abstract) Jones, Karl (2022). Method and system for locating one or more users in an emergency (US 2022/0335810 A1). Filed 2020-09-23. Discloses a method of locating one or more users in an emergency. (abstract) Barrett, Richard (2014). Urgent and emergency notification and communication system (US 2014/0177812 A1). Filed 2013-12-20. Discloses a communication system for urgent and emergency notifications including a communication device with sensors to obtain or determine user location information and/or status information following activation of the communication device. (abstract) Kuz, Volker et al. (2011). Method, device and system for transmitting an emergency call (US 8032108 B2). Filed 2004-06-30. Discloses a method and an emergency call device for transmitting an emergency call including emergency information. (abstract) Kobayashi, Kosei et al. (2024). Notification device, notification system, notification method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium (US 2024/0127595 A1). Filed 2021-03-29. Discloses a notification device capable of detecting occurrence of an accident/emergency from a video input. (abstract) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW JAMES DWYER whose telephone number is (571)272-5121. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6 a.m. - 3 p.m. EST. 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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at (571) 272-7855. 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. /MATTHEW JAMES DWYER/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /GEORGE ENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 2 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 3 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 4 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 5 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 6 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 7 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 8 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 9 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 10 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 11 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 12 Art Unit: 2649 Application/Control Number: 18/839,761 Page 13 Art Unit: 2649
Prosecution Insights