DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the application filed on 10/02/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on October 2nd, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner. 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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kamdar (US 8521124 B2, hereinafter “Kamdar”), and further in view of Banavar et al. (US 7603115 B2, hereinafter “Banavar”)
Regarding Claim 1, Kamdar teaches a method comprising: “Process 900 may include receiving an E911 call from a user device (block 910) and sending a location inquiry to initiate selecting between fixed and wireless locations (block 920). For example, as described above in connection with FIG. 4, user device 210 may initiate an emergency (E911) call 410 associated with an ANI, and proxy server 220 may receive E911 call 410.” [Col. 11, lines 43-48]
identifying an initial location for an emergency call made by a wireless device, “Address lookup component 710 may include hardware or a combination of hardware and software to identify a street address associated with a user device (e.g., user device 210). In one implementation, address lookup component 710 may include, or otherwise communicate with, address database 715 that stores address information associated with user device 210 (e.g., addresses associated with an ANI of user device 210)” [Col. 9, lines 7-14], and “Address lookup component 710 may query address database 715 for street address information (e.g., based on an ANI or other indication of user device 210), and may provide the received street address information to position data converter 720.” [Col. 12, lines 30-34]
identifying an updated location for the emergency call made by the wireless device, “Wireless location component 700 may determine a best-available position determining method for user device 210 and solicit geographic location information from user device 210 according to the selected position determining method. Wireless location component 700 may receive, from user device 210 (e.g., via location response 440), the geographic location information and the type of position determining method used, and forward the geographic location information and method to position data converter 720.” [Col. 8, line 65 to line 6, Col. 9]
determining a distance between the initial location and the updated location, “Position data converter 720 may include hardware or a combination of hardware and software to convert the geographic location information from wireless location component 700 and/or the street address information from address lookup component 710 into comparable data. In one implementation, position data converter 720 may convert GPS data and/or street address information (if necessary) into latitude and longitude coordinates.” [Col. 9, lines 27-34], and “Returning to FIG. 10, process block 930 may further include calculating the difference between the wireless location and the fixed location (block 1040) and determining if the difference is within a particular threshold (block 1050)” [Col. 12, lines 35-38], and “If the street address data and the wireless location data are outside of a particular threshold distance, location selection component 730 may use the wireless location data as the current location of user device 210. If the street address data and the wireless location data are within the particular threshold distance, location selection component 730 may use the street address data as the current location of user device 210.” [Col. 9, lines 48-55]
comparing the distance to a predetermined threshold, “The particular threshold distance value applied by location selection component 730 may vary depending upon the type of position determining method used to determine the wireless location data and/or the type of location based on the street address.” [Col. 9, lines 59-63], and “In one implementation, location selection component 730 may retrieve an appropriate threshold distance value from proximity variables cache 740.” [Col. 12, lines 52-54]
However, Kamdar does not explicitly teaches locating a potential coverage gap when the distance meets the predetermined threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Banavar teaches locating a potential coverage gap when the distance meets the predetermined threshold, “System 500 includes a location module or system 502. Location module 502 preferably works with a positioning system 504 such as digital map information, e911, GPS or uses signal strength from one or more cell towers to determine a position of a user device (e.g., cell phone). Positioning system 504 may be located at the mobile user's device and/or on/at the base stations of the system. Location module 502 monitors the position of the user and compares this position against a coverage area map 503 to determine when a coverage gap is being approached. A warning may be triggered when the user is close to a coverage gap.” [Col. 5, lines 16-26], and “The location module 502 may include a program that determines a position of a user based on at least one of map information, global positioning satellite, signal strength, e911 (local emergency location) and distances between cell stations. The location module 502 preferably determines a coverage gap based upon a comparison between a coverage area map and a user's position.” [Col. 5, lines 34-40]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kamdar with the teachings of Banavar to identify a potential coverage gap when the location difference satisfies the predetermined threshold because Banavar teaches using location-based comparisons to identify wireless coverage gaps. This modification applies a known coverage-gap identification technique to Kamdar’s existing location-difference and threshold comparison to achieve the predictable result of identifying potential wireless coverage gaps, while preserving Kamdar’s existing emergency-call routing functionality.
Regarding Claim 5, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 5 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, Kamdar further teach wherein the updated location corresponds to a location of the wireless device, “User device 210 may identify a current geographic position (e.g., using GPS, triangulation, etc.) and provide a response 440 with the geographic position information to location engine 160.” [Col. 6, lines 16-20], and “Location engine 160 may (if necessary) convert the street address information into geographic location information (e.g., latitude and longitude data) that may be compared with the geographic position information provided in response 440.” [Col. 6, lines 21-25]
Regarding Claim 11, Kamdar teaches a system comprising: a memory storing data and instructions, “Main memory 330 may include a random access memory (RAM) or another type of dynamic storage device that may store information and instructions for execution by processor 320. ROM 340 may include a ROM device or another type of static storage device that may store static information and/or instructions for use by processor 320. Storage device 350 may include a magnetic and/or optical recording medium and its corresponding drive, or a type of flash memory.” [Col. 5, lines 9-17]; and
a processor accessing the stored data and executing the stored instructions to perform operations including, “Processor 320 may include a processor … that may interpret and execute instructions.” [Col. 5, lines 6-9], and “As described herein, device 300 may perform certain operations in response to processor 320 executing software instructions contained in a computer-readable medium, …The software instructions contained in main memory 330 may cause processor 320 to perform processes described herein. Alternatively, hardwired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement processes described herein” [Col. 5, lines 31-43]
identifying an initial location for an emergency call made by a wireless device, “Address lookup component 710 may include hardware or a combination of hardware and software to identify a street address associated with a user device (e.g., user device 210). In one implementation, address lookup component 710 may include, or otherwise communicate with, address database 715 that stores address information associated with user device 210 (e.g., addresses associated with an ANI of user device 210)” [Col. 9, lines 7-14], and “Address lookup component 710 may query address database 715 for street address information (e.g., based on an ANI or other indication of user device 210), and may provide the received street address information to position data converter 720.” [Col. 12, lines 30-34]
identifying an updated location for the emergency call made by the wireless device, “Wireless location component 700 may determine a best-available position determining method for user device 210 and solicit geographic location information from user device 210 according to the selected position determining method. Wireless location component 700 may receive, from user device 210 (e.g., via location response 440), the geographic location information and the type of position determining method used, and forward the geographic location information and method to position data converter 720.” [Col. 8, line 65 to line 6, Col. 9]
determining a distance between the initial location and the updated location, “Position data converter 720 may include hardware or a combination of hardware and software to convert the geographic location information from wireless location component 700 and/or the street address information from address lookup component 710 into comparable data. In one implementation, position data converter 720 may convert GPS data and/or street address information (if necessary) into latitude and longitude coordinates.” [Col. 9, lines 27-34], and “Returning to FIG. 10, process block 930 may further include calculating the difference between the wireless location and the fixed location (block 1040) and determining if the difference is within a particular threshold (block 1050)” [Col. 12, lines 35-38], and “If the street address data and the wireless location data are outside of a particular threshold distance, location selection component 730 may use the wireless location data as the current location of user device 210. If the street address data and the wireless location data are within the particular threshold distance, location selection component 730 may use the street address data as the current location of user device 210.” [Col. 9, lines 48-55]
comparing the distance to a predetermined threshold, “The particular threshold distance value applied by location selection component 730 may vary depending upon the type of position determining method used to determine the wireless location data and/or the type of location based on the street address.” [Col. 9, lines 59-63], and “In one implementation, location selection component 730 may retrieve an appropriate threshold distance value from proximity variables cache 740.” [Col. 12, lines 52-54]
However, Kamdar does not explicitly teaches locating a potential coverage gap when the distance meets the predetermined threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Banavar teaches locating a potential coverage gap when the distance meets the predetermined threshold, “System 500 includes a location module or system 502. Location module 502 preferably works with a positioning system 504 such as digital map information, e911, GPS or uses signal strength from one or more cell towers to determine a position of a user device (e.g., cell phone). Positioning system 504 may be located at the mobile user's device and/or on/at the base stations of the system. Location module 502 monitors the position of the user and compares this position against a coverage area map 503 to determine when a coverage gap is being approached. A warning may be triggered when the user is close to a coverage gap.” [Col. 5, lines 16-26], and “The location module 502 may include a program that determines a position of a user based on at least one of map information, global positioning satellite, signal strength, e911 (local emergency location) and distances between cell stations. The location module 502 preferably determines a coverage gap based upon a comparison between a coverage area map and a user's position.” [Col. 5, lines 34-40]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kamdar with the teachings of Banavar to identify a potential coverage gap when the location difference satisfies the predetermined threshold because Banavar teaches using location-based comparisons to identify wireless coverage gaps. This modification applies a known coverage-gap identification technique to Kamdar’s existing location-difference and threshold comparison to achieve the predictable result of identifying potential wireless coverage gaps, while preserving Kamdar’s existing emergency-call routing functionality, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 14, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 14 as recited above in the rejection of claim 11. In addition, Kamdar further teach wherein the updated location corresponds to a location of the wireless device, “User device 210 may identify a current geographic position (e.g., using GPS, triangulation, etc.) and provide a response 440 with the geographic position information to location engine 160.” [Col. 6, lines 16-20], and “Location engine 160 may (if necessary) convert the street address information into geographic location information (e.g., latitude and longitude data) that may be compared with the geographic position information provided in response 440.” [Col. 6, lines 21-25]
Regarding Claim 15, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 15 as recited above in the rejection of claim 14. In addition, Kamdar further teaches wherein the updated location is determined based on one of global positioning system (GPS) and global navigation satellite system (GNSS) data, “User device 210 may identify a current geographic position (e.g., using GPS, triangulation, etc.) and provide a response 440 with the geographic position information to location engine 160.” [Col. 6, lines 16-20], and “The location of user device 210 may be determined, for example, based on one or a combination of technologies or techniques, such as GPS, GNSS, cellular positioning methods (e.g., triangulation, multilateration, etc.), local positioning methods (e.g., Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11, Ultra-Wide Band), etc.” [Col. 8, lines 44-49]
Regarding Claim 17, Kamdar teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions executed by a processor to perform operations comprising: “As described herein, device 300 may perform certain operations in response to processor 320 executing software instructions contained in a computer-readable medium” [Col. 5, lines 31-33], and “The software instructions may be read into main memory 330 from another computer-readable medium, such as storage device 350” [Col. 5, lines 38-40]
identifying an initial location for an emergency call made by a wireless device, “Address lookup component 710 may include hardware or a combination of hardware and software to identify a street address associated with a user device (e.g., user device 210). In one implementation, address lookup component 710 may include, or otherwise communicate with, address database 715 that stores address information associated with user device 210 (e.g., addresses associated with an ANI of user device 210)” [Col. 9, lines 7-14], and “Address lookup component 710 may query address database 715 for street address information (e.g., based on an ANI or other indication of user device 210), and may provide the received street address information to position data converter 720.” [Col. 12, lines 30-34]
identifying an updated location for the emergency call made by the wireless device, “Wireless location component 700 may determine a best-available position determining method for user device 210 and solicit geographic location information from user device 210 according to the selected position determining method. Wireless location component 700 may receive, from user device 210 (e.g., via location response 440), the geographic location information and the type of position determining method used, and forward the geographic location information and method to position data converter 720.” [Col. 8, line 65 to line 6, Col. 9]
determining a distance between the initial location and the updated location, “Position data converter 720 may include hardware or a combination of hardware and software to convert the geographic location information from wireless location component 700 and/or the street address information from address lookup component 710 into comparable data. In one implementation, position data converter 720 may convert GPS data and/or street address information (if necessary) into latitude and longitude coordinates.” [Col. 9, lines 27-34], and “Returning to FIG. 10, process block 930 may further include calculating the difference between the wireless location and the fixed location (block 1040) and determining if the difference is within a particular threshold (block 1050)” [Col. 12, lines 35-38], and “If the street address data and the wireless location data are outside of a particular threshold distance, location selection component 730 may use the wireless location data as the current location of user device 210. If the street address data and the wireless location data are within the particular threshold distance, location selection component 730 may use the street address data as the current location of user device 210.” [Col. 9, lines 48-55]
comparing the distance to a predetermined threshold, “The particular threshold distance value applied by location selection component 730 may vary depending upon the type of position determining method used to determine the wireless location data and/or the type of location based on the street address.” [Col. 9, lines 59-63], and “In one implementation, location selection component 730 may retrieve an appropriate threshold distance value from proximity variables cache 740.” [Col. 12, lines 52-54]
However, Kamdar does not explicitly teaches locating a potential coverage gap when the distance meets the predetermined threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Banavar teaches locating a potential coverage gap when the distance meets the predetermined threshold, “System 500 includes a location module or system 502. Location module 502 preferably works with a positioning system 504 such as digital map information, e911, GPS or uses signal strength from one or more cell towers to determine a position of a user device (e.g., cell phone). Positioning system 504 may be located at the mobile user's device and/or on/at the base stations of the system. Location module 502 monitors the position of the user and compares this position against a coverage area map 503 to determine when a coverage gap is being approached. A warning may be triggered when the user is close to a coverage gap.” [Col. 5, lines 16-26], and “The location module 502 may include a program that determines a position of a user based on at least one of map information, global positioning satellite, signal strength, e911 (local emergency location) and distances between cell stations. The location module 502 preferably determines a coverage gap based upon a comparison between a coverage area map and a user's position.” [Col. 5, lines 34-40]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kamdar with the teachings of Banavar to identify a potential coverage gap when the location difference satisfies the predetermined threshold because Banavar teaches using location-based comparisons to identify wireless coverage gaps. This modification applies a known coverage-gap identification technique to Kamdar’s existing location-difference and threshold comparison to achieve the predictable result of identifying potential wireless coverage gaps, while preserving Kamdar’s existing emergency-call routing functionality, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 20, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 20 as recited above in the rejection of claim 17. However Kamdar does not explicitly teach further comprising verifying the located potential coverage gap based on additional emergency call data.
In the same field of endeavor, Banavar teaches further comprising verifying the located potential coverage gap based on additional emergency call data, “statistical information may be gathered regarding when signals for a plurality of users are lost and regained between stations or towers. In this way, an estimate, can be determined based on a statistical average, and can be a function of time or day, weather conditions, system traffic and/or other factors.” [Col. 3, lines 49-54]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kamdar to verify a located potential coverage gap using additional emergency call data, as taught by Banavar, because using additional statistical information to confirm a coverage-gap determination was a known technique. This modification applies a known verification technique to Kamdar’s coverage-gap determination to achieve the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 2, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kamdar (US 8521124 B2, hereinafter “Kamdar”), further in view of Banavar et al. (US 7603115 B2, hereinafter “Banavar”), and further in view of Fuller, Jr. et al. (US 8811941 B2, hereinafter “Fuller”)
Regarding Claim 2, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 2 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Kamdar teaches initial location, “In one implementation, location engine 160 may collect and provide previously stored and/or real-time (or near real-time) location information for user device 210.” [Col. 4, lines 19-22].
However, Kamdar and Banavar do not explicitly teach the updated location are identified from stored emergency call records.
In the same view of endeavor, Fuller teaches a wireless network architecture including a gateway mobile location center (GMLC 106) that maintains and accesses a database in connection with processing location estimates during an emergency call, the updated location are identified from stored emergency call records, “The gateway mobile location center 106 is still further operable to access enablement data in the GMLC's database that designates whether the provision, communication, or pushing, of data representative of updated location estimates for mobile station 102 is enabled” [Col. 7, lines 11-16], and “The gateway mobile location center 106 … comprises a processing unit, a data storage device storing a database and Software program instructions executable by the processing unit, memory, and appropriate data communication interfaces” [Col. 5, lines 48-52], and “The W-ALI 105 is further configured to communicate initial location estimates for mobile stations 102 to the appropriate public safety answering points 104 in response to requests therefor and to communicate, or “push”, updated location estimates for mobile stations 102 to the appropriate public safety answering points 104” [Col. 5, line 65 to line 4, Col. 6], and “During an emergency call, the mobile switching center 108 is still further operable to: receive messages from the base station controller 110 indicating that the base station controller 110 has detected movement of the mobile station 102 and including information or data comprising the phone number for the calling mobile station 102, the identifier for the mobile switching center 108, and the global identifier for the cell or sector, as the case may be, in which the mobile station 102 is present; responsive thereto” [Col. 8, lines 23-32]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the combination of Kamdar and Banavar to incorporate the GMLC-based emergency taught by Fuller. Kamdar teaches comparing an initial location and an updated location associated with an emergency call, while Banavar teaches using location information to identify coverage gaps. Fuller teaches maintaining and processing emergency-call location information within a GMLC architecture that includes a database storing emergency-call-related information and supports processing of both initial and updated location estimates during the same emergency call. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fuller’s GMLC-based location management into Kamdar and Banavar in order to utilize stored emergency-call-related location information with a conventional E911 network architecture while preserving the location comparison and coverage-gap determination of Kamdar and Banavar. The modification merely combines known E911 networks components according to theirs established functions to achieve the predictable result of identifying the initial and updated locations from emergency-call-related stored information, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 12 as recited above in the rejection of claim 11. Kamdar teaches initial location, “In one implementation, location engine 160 may collect and provide previously stored and/or real-time (or near real-time) location information for user device 210.” [Col. 4, lines 19-22].
However, Kamdar and Banavar do not explicitly teach the updated location are identified from stored emergency call records.
In the same view of endeavor, Fuller teaches a wireless network architecture including a gateway mobile location center (GMLC 106) that maintains and accesses a database in connection with processing location estimates during an emergency call, the updated location are identified from stored emergency call records, “The gateway mobile location center 106 is still further operable to access enablement data in the GMLC's database that designates whether the provision, communication, or pushing, of data representative of updated location estimates for mobile station 102 is enabled” [Col. 7, lines 11-16], and “The gateway mobile location center 106 … comprises a processing unit, a data storage device storing a database and Software program instructions executable by the processing unit, memory, and appropriate data communication interfaces” [Col. 5, lines 48-52], and “The W-ALI 105 is further configured to communicate initial location estimates for mobile stations 102 to the appropriate public safety answering points 104 in response to requests therefor and to communicate, or “push”, updated location estimates for mobile stations 102 to the appropriate public safety answering points 104” [Col. 5, line 65 to line 4, Col. 6], and “During an emergency call, the mobile switching center 108 is still further operable to: receive messages from the base station controller 110 indicating that the base station controller 110 has detected movement of the mobile station 102 and including information or data comprising the phone number for the calling mobile station 102, the identifier for the mobile switching center 108, and the global identifier for the cell or sector, as the case may be, in which the mobile station 102 is present; responsive thereto” [Col. 8, lines 23-32]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the combination of Kamdar and Banavar to incorporate the GMLC-based emergency taught by Fuller. Kamdar teaches comparing an initial location and an updated location associated with an emergency call, while Banavar teaches using location information to identify coverage gaps. Fuller teaches maintaining and processing emergency-call location information within a GMLC architecture that includes a database storing emergency-call-related information and supports processing of both initial and updated location estimates during the same emergency call. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fuller’s GMLC-based location management into Kamdar and Banavar in order to utilize stored emergency-call-related location information with a conventional E911 network architecture while preserving the location comparison and coverage-gap determination of Kamdar and Banavar. The modification merely combines known E911 networks components according to theirs established functions to achieve the predictable result of identifying the initial and updated locations from emergency-call-related stored information, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 18, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 18 as recited above in the rejection of claim 17. Kamdar teaches initial location, “In one implementation, location engine 160 may collect and provide previously stored and/or real-time (or near real-time) location information for user device 210.” [Col. 4, lines 19-22].
However, Kamdar and Banavar do not explicitly teach the updated location are identified from stored emergency call records.
In the same view of endeavor, Fuller teaches a wireless network architecture including a gateway mobile location center (GMLC 106) that maintains and accesses a database in connection with processing location estimates during an emergency call, the updated location are identified from stored emergency call records, “The gateway mobile location center 106 is still further operable to access enablement data in the GMLC's database that designates whether the provision, communication, or pushing, of data representative of updated location estimates for mobile station 102 is enabled” [Col. 7, lines 11-16], and “The gateway mobile location center 106 … comprises a processing unit, a data storage device storing a database and Software program instructions executable by the processing unit, memory, and appropriate data communication interfaces” [Col. 5, lines 48-52], and “The W-ALI 105 is further configured to communicate initial location estimates for mobile stations 102 to the appropriate public safety answering points 104 in response to requests therefor and to communicate, or “push”, updated location estimates for mobile stations 102 to the appropriate public safety answering points 104” [Col. 5, line 65 to line 4, Col. 6], and “During an emergency call, the mobile switching center 108 is still further operable to: receive messages from the base station controller 110 indicating that the base station controller 110 has detected movement of the mobile station 102 and including information or data comprising the phone number for the calling mobile station 102, the identifier for the mobile switching center 108, and the global identifier for the cell or sector, as the case may be, in which the mobile station 102 is present; responsive thereto” [Col. 8, lines 23-32]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the combination of Kamdar and Banavar to incorporate the GMLC-based emergency taught by Fuller. Kamdar teaches comparing an initial location and an updated location associated with an emergency call, while Banavar teaches using location information to identify coverage gaps. Fuller teaches maintaining and processing emergency-call location information within a GMLC architecture that includes a database storing emergency-call-related information and supports processing of both initial and updated location estimates during the same emergency call. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Fuller’s GMLC-based location management into Kamdar and Banavar in order to utilize stored emergency-call-related location information with a conventional E911 network architecture while preserving the location comparison and coverage-gap determination of Kamdar and Banavar. The modification merely combines known E911 networks components according to theirs established functions to achieve the predictable result of identifying the initial and updated locations from emergency-call-related stored information, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 3, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kamdar (US 8521124 B2, hereinafter “Kamdar”), further in view of Banavar et al. (US 7603115 B2, hereinafter “Banavar”), and further in view of Rayburn et al. (US 8000724 B1, hereinafter “Rayburn”)
Regarding Claim 3, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 3 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. However, Kamdar and Banavar do not explicitly teach the initial location corresponds to a location of a serving cell for the emergency call.
In the same field of endeavor, Rayburn teaches the initial location corresponds to a location of a serving cell for the emergency call, “According to Phase 1, the location must be identified with an accuracy of at least cell and sector.” [Col. 1, lines 35-37], and “As this information is typically maintained by a wireless cellular carrier in a subscriber's home location register” [Col. 1, lines 37-39]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Kamdar and Banavar to utilize the serving-cell location taught by Rayburn as the initial location for the emergency call because serving-cell location was well-known E911 location technique. This modification substitutes one known source of initial location information for another to achieve the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 13, Kamdar and Banavar disclosed the limitations of claim 13 as recited above in the rejection of claim 11. However, Kamdar and Banavar do not explicitly teach the initial location corresponds to a location of a serving cell for the emergency call.
In the same field of endeavor, Rayburn teaches the initial location corresponds to a location of a serving cell for the emergency call, “According to Phase 1, the location must be identified with an accuracy of at least cell and sector.” [Col. 1, lines 35-37], and “As this information is typically maintained by a wireless cellular carrier in a subscriber's home location register” [Col. 1, lines 37-39]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Kamdar and Banavar to utilize the serving-cell location taught by Rayburn as the initial location for the emergency call because serving-cell location was well-known E911 location technique. This modification substitutes one known source of initial location information for another to achieve the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 19, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 19 as recited above in the rejection of claim 17. In addition, Kamdar further teach wherein the updated location corresponds to a location of the wireless device, “User device 210 may identify a current geographic position (e.g., using GPS, triangulation, etc.) and provide a response 440 with the geographic position information to location engine 160.” [Col. 6, lines 16-20], and “Location engine 160 may (if necessary) convert the street address information into geographic location information (e.g., latitude and longitude data) that may be compared with the geographic position information provided in response 440.” [Col. 6, lines 21-25]
However, Kamdar and Banavar do not explicitly teach the initial location corresponds to a location of a serving cell for the emergency call.
In the same field of endeavor, Rayburn teaches the initial location corresponds to a location of a serving cell for the emergency call, “According to Phase 1, the location must be identified with an accuracy of at least cell and sector.” [Col. 1, lines 35-37], and “As this information is typically maintained by a wireless cellular carrier in a subscriber's home location register” [Col. 1, lines 37-39]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Kamdar and Banavar to utilize the serving-cell location taught by Rayburn as the initial location for the emergency call because serving-cell location was well-known E911 location technique. This modification substitutes one known source of initial location information for another to achieve the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kamdar (US 8521124 B2, hereinafter “Kamdar”), in view of Banavar et al. (US 7603115 B2, hereinafter “Banavar”), further in view of Rayburn et al. (US 8000724 B1, hereinafter “Rayburn”), and further in view of Borkowski et al. (US 5519760 A, hereinafter “Borkowski”)
Regarding Claim 4, Kamdar, Banavar, and Rayburn disclose the limitations of claim 4 as recited above in the rejection of claim 3. Kamdar teaches converting a subscriber’s street address into latitude and longitude coordinates for comparison purpose, “convert GPS data and/or street address information (if necessary) into latitude and longitude coordinates.” [Col. 9, lines 32-34]
However, the combination of Kamdar, Banavar, and Rayburn does not explicitly teach the initial location is a latitude and longitude of the serving cell.
In the same field of endeavor, Borkowski teaches the initial location is a latitude and longitude of the serving cell, “The radio plans, which correspond to geographic maps of radio coverage, furnish information such as the latitude and longitude derived from the cell base station antenna location, elevation, radius, and angles for sectorized cells.” [Col. 2, lines 32-36]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Kamdar, Banavar, and Rayburn to represent the serving-cell initial location using the latitude and longitude of the cell base station, as taught by Borkowski, because Kamdar already performs location comparison using latitude and longitude coordinate. This modification applies a known coordinate representation to a known serving-cell location to achieve the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 6, Kamdar, Banavar, Rayburn, and Borkowski disclose the limitations of claim 6 as recited above in the rejection of claim 4. In addition, Kamdar further teaches wherein the updated location is determined based on one of global positioning system (GPS) and global navigation satellite system (GNSS) data, “User device 210 may identify a current geographic position (e.g., using GPS, triangulation, etc.) and provide a response 440 with the geographic position information to location engine 160.” [Col. 6, lines 16-20], and “The location of user device 210 may be determined, for example, based on one or a combination of technologies or techniques, such as GPS, GNSS, cellular positioning methods (e.g., triangulation, multilateration, etc.), local positioning methods (e.g., Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11, Ultra-Wide Band), etc.” [Col. 8, lines 44-49]
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kamdar (US 8521124 B2, hereinafter “Kamdar”), in view of Banavar et al. (US 7603115 B2, hereinafter “Banavar”), further in view of Rayburn et al. (US 8000724 B1, hereinafter “Rayburn”), further in view of Borkowski et al. (US 5519760 A, hereinafter “Borkowski”), and further in view of Lan (US 11589188 B1, hereinafter “Lan”)
Regarding Claim 7, Kamdar, Banavar, Rayburn, and Borkowski disclose the limitations of claim 7 as recited above in the rejection of claim 4. However, the combination of Kamdar, Banavar, Rayburn, and Borkowski does not explicitly teach wherein the updated location is determined based on a device based hybrid (DBH) method.
In the same field of endeavor, Lan teaches the updated location is determined based on a device based hybrid (DBH) method, “To locate a mobile telephone geographically, there are generally the following three approaches: Enhanced Cell ID (E-CellID, or E-CID); global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) or assisted GNSS (A-GNSS/AGPS); and device-based hybrid (DBH) approach. DBH location uses a mix of location methods available to the device including crowd-sourced Wi-Fi, A-GNSS, and handset-based sensors.” [Col. 1, lines 25-32]
It would have been to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Kamdar, Banavar, Rayburn, and Borkowski to determine the updated location using the device based hybrid (DBH) method taught by Lan because DBH was a known emergency-call positioning technique for determining a mobile device’s location. This modification substitutes one known positioning technique for another to achieve the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 8, Kamdar, Banavar, Rayburn, and Borkowski disclose the limitations of claim 7 as recited above in the rejection of claim 4. However, the combination of Kamdar, Banavar, Rayburn, and Borkowski does not explicitly teach wherein the wireless device pushes data indicating the updated location to a gateway mobile location center (GMLC).
In the same field of endeavor, Lan teaches the wireless device pushes data indicating the updated location to a gateway mobile location center (GMLC), “This can be done by sending the current location of the UE via HTTPs protocol to a telecommunications service provider node (e.g., an end point in GMLC).” [Col. 2, lines 60-63]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Kamdar, Banavar, Rayburn, and Borkowski so that the wireless device sends updated location data to a GMLC, as taught by Lan, because device transmission of location information to a GMLC was a known emergency-call location management technique. This modification applies a known data-delivery technique to the known updated-location information to achieve the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kamdar (US 8521124 B2, hereinafter “Kamdar”), further in view of Banavar et al. (US 7603115 B2, hereinafter “Banavar”), and further in view of Donepudi. et al. (US 20160135132 A1, hereinafter “Donepudi”)
Regarding Claim 9, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 9 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. Kamdar teaches wherein the predetermined threshold is configurable , “The particular threshold distance value applied by location selection component 730 may vary depending upon the type of position determining method used to determine the wireless location data and/or the type of location based on the street address.” [Col. 9, lines 59-63]
However, the combination Kamdar and Banavar does not explicitly teach the predetermined threshold is configurable based on network characteristics.
In the same field of endeavor, Donepudi teaches the predetermined threshold is configurable based on network characteristics, “Operational network parameters include any parameters that affect the performance of the network, including thresholds, hysteresis periods, radio directionality, signal levels, signal quality thresholds, power levels, network paths, network node selection heuristics, handover parameters, quality-of-service (QoS) parameters, modulations, encodings, traffic shaping parameters, and prioritization information” [0051]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Kamdar in view of Banavar to configure the predetermined threshold based on network characteristic, as taught by Donepudi, because configuring threshold values according to network condition was a known technique for improving wireless network operation. This modification applies a known threshold-configuration technique to Kamdar’s threshold comparison, yielding the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 10, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of claim 10 as recited above in the rejection of claim 1. However, Kamdar does not explicitly teach monitoring a number of times the potential coverage gap is identified at the updated location during a time period based on additional emergency call data.
In addition, Banavar further teaches monitoring a number of times the potential coverage gap is identified at the updated location during a time period based on additional emergency call data, “Another method for determining gap times or lengths may include instrumenting the communication system's infrastructure to record the time and station from which a cell phone loses coverage and the time and station to which the same cell phone reconnects to the network” [Col. 3, lines 39-43]
It would have been obvious to combine Kamdar with Banavar because Banavar teaches recording repeated coverage-related events over time using location information, thereby extending Kamdar’s single-event coverage-gap determination to repeated coverage-event monitoring.
The combination of Kamdar and Banavar does not explicitly teach:
comparing the number of times to an additional predetermined threshold; and verifying existence of the coverage gap in response to the number of times meeting or exceeding the predetermined threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Donepudi teaches comparing the number of times to an additional predetermined threshold; and verifying existence of the coverage gap in response to the number of times meeting or exceeding the predetermined threshold, “Aggregating over one or more records in this way can be used to enable the network to wait until a threshold of record measurements has been reached, such as a minimum number of call drops, before performing a network management action.” [0099]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Kamdar in view of Banavar with the aggregation technique taught by Donepudi to compare a count of repeated coverage-related events to a predetermined threshold before verifying a coverage gap because threshold-based aggregation of repeated network events was a known technique for improving the reliability of network management decisions. This modification applies a known aggregation technique to Kamdar’s coverage-gap determination to achieve the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kamdar (US 8521124 B2, hereinafter “Kamdar”), in view of Banavar et al. (US 7603115 B2, hereinafter “Banavar”), and further in view of Lan (US 11589188 B1, hereinafter “Lan”)
Regarding Claim 16, Kamdar and Banavar disclose the limitations of the claim 16 as recited above in the rejection of claim 14. However, Kamar and Banavar do not explicitly teach wherein the updated location is determined based on a device based hybrid (DBH) method.
In the same field of endeavor, Lan teaches the updated location is determined based on a device based hybrid (DBH) method, “To locate a mobile telephone geographically, there are generally the following three approaches: Enhanced Cell ID (E-CellID, or E-CID); global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) or assisted GNSS (A-GNSS/AGPS); and device-based hybrid (DBH) approach. DBH location uses a mix of location methods available to the device including crowd-sourced Wi-Fi, A-GNSS, and handset-based sensors.” [Col. 1, lines 25-32]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Kamdar in view of Banavar to determine the updated location using the device based hybrid (DBH) method taught by Lan because DBH was a known emergency-call positioning technique for determining a mobile device’s location. This modification substitutes one known positioning technique for another to achieve the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Bruce (US 20120314625 A1) - Method and apparatus for enabling internet-based emergency calls, discloses an approach is provided for certifying wireless access nodes for use in connection with emergency calls. A certification platform certifies location information of a wireless access node as part of an emergency response service for packetized voice calls. The location information is then stored in a database that includes a plurality of certified location information of a respective plurality of wireless access nodes including the activated wireless access node. The database is accessed in response to an emergency call to assist with determination of position information of wireless devices based on location information of the wireless access node that detects presence of the wireless device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG PHUOC LE whose telephone number is (571)272-3659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
SANG PHUOC. LE
Examiner
Art Unit 2641
/SANG PHUOC LE/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights