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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 and claim 16 are system claims for an alert system comprising at least one processing circuit configured to acquire, determine and provide data. Then claim 1 further recites, “… wherein the wireless emergency alert system is configured to distribute the alert including the alert data to user devices positioned within the distribution area, and wherein the wireless emergency alert system is configured to communicate with the user devices without requiring the user devices to download or have access to an application or subscription associated with the wireless emergency alert system.” Claim 16 similarly recites, “… wherein the wireless emergency alert system is configured to distribute the alert including the alert data to user devices positioned within the distribution area.” However, claim 1 and claim 16 are directed to an alert system (e.g., element 220 in Figure 2) while the wherein clause is directed to functionality of a wireless alert system (e.g., element 300 in Figure 3). Further, dependent claim 2 and claims 8-10 recite limitations directed at functionalities of the wireless alert system. It is unclear how the functionalities of the wireless alert system limit the claimed alert system to have patentable weight. In other words, it is unclear whether the wherein clause is intended use (not part of the scope of claim 1 or claim 16, no need to be met) or the wireless alert system being part of the claimed system. In light of claim 2 and claims 8-10, for examination purposes, claim 1 and claim 16 are interpreted to be the latter, namely the wireless alert system being part of the claimed system. Dependent claim 2 and claims 8-10 have the same issue as that of claim 1 by reciting functionality of the wireless alert system as recited above and is rejected for the same reason. Dependent claims 2-10 and claims 17-20 fail to cure the deficiencies and thus are rejected.
Method claim 11 recites “wherein the wireless emergency alert system is configured to distribute the first alert including the alert data to user devices positioned within the first distribution area.” However, it is unclear whether the wherein clause is part of the scope of method claim 11, because it is not a positive/active step being performed. In other words, it is unclear whether the wherein clause should be given patentable weight (See MPEP 2111.04: “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.”). For examining purposes, the limitation is interpreted to be “distribute, by the wireless emergency alert system, the first alert including the alert data to user devices positioned within the first distribution area.” Dependent claim 12 and claim 14 have the same issue as that of claim 11 by reciting functionality of the wireless alert system as recited above and is rejected for the same reason. Dependent claims 12-15 fail to cure the deficiencies and thus are rejected.
Applicant is recommended to amend independent claims 1 and 16 to have the claimed system comprising both the alert system (suggested to further amend it to have a different name to differentiate it from “the wireless emergency alert system”) and the wireless emergency alert system. Applicant is recommended to amend independent claim 11 to positively recite “distribute, by the wireless emergency alert system, the first alert including the alert data to user devices positioned within the first distribution area.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more, under the condition of the claim interpretation given in the 112(b) rejection.
Specifically, regarding claims 1, 11 and 16, claim limitations of “determine” are directed to an abstract idea, mental processes. The limitations, “… wherein the wireless emergency alert system is configured to distribute the alert including the alert data to user devices positioned within the distribution area, and wherein the wireless emergency alert system is configured to communicate with the user devices without requiring the user devices to download or have access to an application or subscription associated with the wireless emergency alert system,” are additional elements which integrate the judicial exception/abstract idea into a practical application, because the limitations use the outcome of the judicial exception (the determined distribution area) to make a corrective action of communication in a particular way (only transmitting to users within said distribution area). These are applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
However, the analysis above is only based on the claim interpretation (see details in the 112(b) rejections) that the wireless alarm system is part of the claimed system of claims 1 and 16, as well as the method of claim 11. Therefore, if claims 1, 11 and 16 are not amended to reflect that the wireless alert system is part of the claimed systems and method of claims 1, 11 and 16, 101 rejection(s) directed to a judicial exception would be issued in the subsequent office action(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-6, 9-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent US10008111B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Grant”) in view of US Patent US8676153B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Sennett et al.”).
Per claim 1, Grant teaches, “An alert system (Column 8, lines 3-7: “… a computer system for generating emergency vehicle warning data 200 may include an emergency vehicle device 205 and a non-emergency vehicle device 265 in communication with a remote emergency management services computer device 210 via a communications network 215.” [Comment: for the purposes of this examination, “computer system for generating emergency vehicle warning data 200” will serve as the “alert system,” “emergency vehicle 205” will serve as the “response vehicle,” “non-emergency vehicle device 265” will serve as “user devices,” and “remote emergency management services computer device 210” will serve as “wireless emergency alert system.”]) comprising: one or more processing circuits configured to: acquire alert data (Column 16, lines 46-53: “In one aspect, a computer implemented method for generating data representative of an emergency vehicle warning and/or alternate vehicle route may be provided. The method may include (1) receiving, generating, or collecting, via or at one or more processors (such as processors associated with an emergency vehicle, non-emergency vehicle, and/or remote servers), emergency vehicle data via wireless communication and/or data transmission”) regarding at least one of an incident or a response vehicle at or responding to the incident (Column 16, lines 53-57: “… wherein the emergency vehicle data is representative of: emergency vehicle origination location data, emergency vehicle current location data, emergency vehicle route data, emergency vehicle destination location data, and/or type of emergency.” [Comment: Since the vehicle is en route to an incident, the vehicle data serves as “response vehicle at or responding to the incident,” and “type of emergency” serves as “data regarding … an incident.”]); determine, based on the alert data, a distribution area for an alert (Column 16, lines 25-29: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium may include an effected geographic area data generation module that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, may cause the processor to generate effected geographic area data based upon the emergency vehicle data”); and provide the alert data … to a wireless emergency alert system (Column 11, lines 52-56: “The processor 225 may execute the location and emergency status data transmission module 325 to cause the processor 225 to transmit emergency vehicle data to, for example, a processor of a remote emergency management services computing device (e.g., processor 250)”), wherein the wireless emergency alert system is configured to distribute the alert including the alert data to user devices positioned within the distribution area (Column 13, lines 23-27: “The processor 250 may execute the emergency management services data transmission module 530 to cause the processor 250 to transmit emergency vehicle data and/or emergency vehicle warning data to a processor of a non-emergency vehicle device (e.g., processor 275 of FIG. 2)”; Column 16, lines 25-34: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium may include … an emergency vehicle data warning transmission module that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, may cause the processor to transmit emergency vehicle warning data and/or alternate routing data to non-emergency vehicles based upon the effected geographic area data.”), and wherein the wireless emergency alert system is configured to communicate with the user devices without requiring the user devices to download or have access to an application or subscription associated with the wireless emergency alert system (Column 4, lines 10-13: “An emergency vehicle location alert may be provide using a system similar to the nationwide text emergency alert system, called Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA) implemented by the National Weather Service, to provide emergency alerts …” [Comment: WEA messages can be transmitted to any “WEA-capable” phone, an FCC designation common across most modern phones, and does not require an application.]; Column 5, line 9-17: “It should be noted that currently, the National Weather Service is able to send automatic alerts to, for example, cellular telephones to warn the associated users of bad weather. These are sent automatically (no subscription necessary) … In one embodiment, a method similar to the National Weather Service may be developed that would alert drivers in the path of EMS vehicles.”).”
Grant further teaches the wireless emergency alert system computing the distribution area (Column 13, lines 11-18: “The processor 250 may execute the effected geographic area determination module 520 to cause the processor 250 to generate effected geographic area data based upon the emergency call data (block 815). The effected geographic area data may be representative of a geographic area in which an emergency vehicle will travel, an emergency vehicle origination location, an emergency vehicle driving route, and/or an emergency vehicle destination location.”). However, Grant doesn’t teach “provide … the distribution area to a wireless emergency alert system …”
Sennett et al. teaches, “… provide the alert data and the distribution area to a wireless emergency alert system (Column 4, lines 4-24: “The relevant geographic area affected by the emergency event may be determined in a number of ways, such as … in the Emergency Operations Center 111 … Alternately, … the Emergency Operations Center 111 may analyze the type of emergency and the location and provide the alert message with a specified affected geographical area. The alert messages maybe provided by the emergency alert server 112 to the broadcast server 114 …” [Comment: for the purposes of this examination, “Emergency Operations Center 111”, which contains the “Emergency Alert Server 112” will serve as the “alert system” and “broadcast server” will serve as “wireless emergency alert system.”]) …”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the providing of a distribution area after determining said distribution area of Sennett et al. into the determining of a distribution area of Grant, such that the distribution area would be determined and then provided. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, specifically, combining known methods of determining a distribution area to yield predictable results, especially given that Grant and Sennett et al. are in the same field of endeavor of emergency alerts (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 2, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 1.
Grant further teaches the use of cellular telephone networks (Column 15, lines 17-24: “The system may also include an emergency vehicle warning data … transmission module stored on a memory that … may cause the processor to transmit emergency vehicle warning data … to a non-emergency vehicle via a cellular telephone network.”), as well as the fact that the communication from the system to users could use private communication systems (Column 10, lines 16-24: “Moreover, a non-emergency vehicle device 265 may be communicatively connected to a remote emergency management services device 210 via any suitable communication system, such as via … privately owned communication network, including those that use wireless communication structures, such as … cellular telephone communication systems …”). However, Grant does not explicitly teach the service provider in “The alert system of claim 1, wherein the wireless emergency alert system communicates with the user devices via a cellular network of a cellular service provider associated with the user devices.”
Sennett et al. teaches, “The alert system of claim 1, wherein the wireless emergency alert system communicates with the user devices via a cellular network of a cellular service provider associated with the user devices (Column 4, lines 26-38: “The wireless broadcast network 116 can be any type of communication network … Additionally, the wireless broadcast network 116 can be operated by a network provider. For example, an organization, corporation, association, or the like, for example, a mobile communications provider such as Verizon Corporation, Sprint Corporation, AT&T Corporation, T-Mobile Corporation, and the like, can broadcast emergency alerts to a geographic region covered by applicable cellular communication towers of the cellular radio network. The mobile devices that receive the alert may be those that are subscribers to the communications service provider.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the cellular network of Sennett et al. into the cellular network of Grant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is simple substitution of one known element for another, specifically, substituting a cellular network operated by a service provider as taught by Sennett et al. with a privately-owned cellular network as taught by Grant to obtain predictable results (KSR(B), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 3, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 1.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 1, wherein the distribution area is determined based on at least one of a first location of the incident or a second location of the response vehicle (Column 13, lines 14-18: “The effected geographic area data may be representative of a geographic area in which an emergency vehicle will travel, an emergency vehicle origination location, an emergency vehicle driving route, and/or an emergency vehicle destination location.” [Comment: the emergency vehicle is en route to the incident, therefore “emergency vehicle destination location” is functionally identical to “location of the incident.”]).”
Per claim 4, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 1.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: receive, from a sensor of the response vehicle, sensor data associated with operation of the response vehicle (Column 19, line 63 to column 20, line 6: “In one aspect, a computer implemented method for generating data representative of an emergency response vehicle warning … The method may include (1) generating or collecting, via or at one or more processors mounted on an emergency response vehicle, emergency response vehicle data (such as from vehicle-mounted sensors), wherein the emergency response vehicle data is representative of: emergency response vehicle origin, current location, current speed, current heading, current route, and/or current destination, and/or type of emergency …”); and determine the distribution area for the alert based on the sensor data (Column 16, lines 25-29: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium may include an effected geographic area data generation module that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, may cause the processor to generate effected geographic area data based upon the emergency vehicle data”).”
Per claim 5, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 4.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 4, wherein the sensor data corresponds to at least one of a speed of the response vehicle or a location of the response vehicle (Column 19, line 63 to column 20, line 6: “In one aspect, a computer implemented method for generating data representative of an emergency response vehicle warning … The method may include (1) generating or collecting, via or at one or more processors mounted on an emergency response vehicle, emergency response vehicle data (such as from vehicle-mounted sensors), wherein the emergency response vehicle data is representative of: emergency response vehicle origin, current location, current speed, current heading, current route, and/or current destination, and/or type of emergency …”).”
Per claim 6, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 1.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 1, wherein: prior to providing the alert data … to the wireless emergency alert system, the one or more processing circuits are configured to receive, from the response vehicle, an activation associated with the alert; and the one or more processing circuits are configured to provide the alert data … to the wireless emergency alert system responsive to receiving the activation (Column 11, lines 52-56: “The processor 225 may execute the location and emergency status data transmission module 325 to cause the processor 225 to transmit emergency vehicle data to, for example, a processor of a remote emergency management services computing device (e.g., processor 250)”).”
Grant doesn’t further teach, “The alert system of claim 1, wherein: prior to providing … the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system, the one or more processing circuits are configured to receive … an activation associated with the alert; and the one or more processing circuits are configured to provide … the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system responsive to receiving the activation.”
Sennett et al. further teaches, “The alert system of claim 1, wherein: prior to providing the alert data and the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system, the one or more processing circuits are configured to receive … an activation associated with the alert (Column 3, lines 16-26: “An alert message initiator 108 may generate and provide an EAS alert message at 86 to an emergency alert network 110. The alert message initiator 108 may be, for example, a first responder to a scene (e.g., fire fighter, police officer, emergency medical technician, etc.), … an automated system (e.g., a fire alarm, electronic sensors that detect toxic gas), … or the like.”); and the one or more processing circuits are configured to provide the alert data and the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system responsive to receiving the activation (Column 4, lines 14-18: “The alert message initiator 108, such as the first responder, could provide the range in the alert message to the emergency alert network 110 at 86, and base the geographic area on a range around a spill location that it is unsafe for humans.”).”
Please note that this is the same distribution area teaching of Sennett et al. as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivations apply (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 9, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 1.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 1, wherein: the distribution area is a first distribution area; the alert is a first alert; and the one or more processing circuits are configured to: determine, based on the alert data, a second distribution area for a second alert; …distributes the second alert to the user devices positioned withing the second distribution area (Column 5, lines 51-54: “… the smart emergency vehicle may broadcast or transmit (via a vehicle-mounted transceiver) certain information to vehicles directly in front of it and/or along its route of travel.” [Comment: the area directly in front serves as the first area, the area along the route serves as the second area.]).”
Grant doesn’t further teach, “… and provide the alert data and the second distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system such that the wireless emergency alert system …”
Sennett et al. further teaches, “… and provide the alert data and the second distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system such that the wireless emergency alert system (Column 4, lines 4-24: “The relevant geographic area affected by the emergency event may be determined in a number of ways, such as … in the Emergency Operations Center 111 … Alternately, … the Emergency Operations Center 111 may analyze the type of emergency and the location and provide the alert message with a specified affected geographical area. The alert messages maybe provided by the emergency alert server 112 to the broadcast server 114 …” [Comment: for the purposes of this examination, “Emergency Operations Center 111”, which contains the “Emergency Alert Server 112” will serve as the “alert system” and “broadcast server” will serve as “wireless emergency alert system.”]) …”
Please note that this is the same distribution area teaching of Sennett et al. as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivations apply (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 10, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 1.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: receive an update to the alert data; and responsive to the update to the alert data resulting in a change to the alert or the distribution area: determine an updated distribution area for an updated alert; and provide the alert data … to the wireless emergency alert system such that the wireless emergency alert system distributes the updated alert to the user devices positioned withing the updated distribution area (Column 4, lines 29-39: “Accordingly, the systems and methods of the present disclosure generally relate to generating emergency vehicle warnings (and/or alternate vehicle routing). More particularly, the methods and systems relate to generating data representative of emergency vehicle warnings (and/or alternate vehicle routing) based upon real-time information related to an emergency vehicle. The information related to the emergency vehicle may include, for example, emergency vehicle origination location data, emergency vehicle current location data, emergency vehicle route data, and/or emergency vehicle destination location data.” [Comment: real-time data inherently means constantly updating data.]; Column 5, lines 48-54: “As the smart emergency vehicle travels to the scene of an insurance-related event, such as a vehicle accident, fire, medical emergency, or police emergency, the smart emergency vehicle may broadcast or transmit (via a vehicle-mounted transceiver) certain information to vehicles directly in front of it and/or along its route of travel.” [Comment: if the distribution zone is relative to a moving vehicle, it is inherently distributing to an updated area.]).”
Grant doesn’t further teach, “… provide … the updated distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system …”
Sennett et al further teaches, “… provide the alert data and the updated distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system (Column 4, lines 4-24: “The relevant geographic area affected by the emergency event may be determined in a number of ways, such as … in the Emergency Operations Center 111 … Alternately, … the Emergency Operations Center 111 may analyze the type of emergency and the location and provide the alert message with a specified affected geographical area. The alert messages maybe provided by the emergency alert server 112 to the broadcast server 114 …”) …”
Please note that this is the same distribution area teaching of Sennett et al. as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivations apply (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 11, Grant teaches, “A method comprising: acquiring, from a response vehicle, alert data regarding at least one of an incident or the response vehicle at or responding to the incident (Column 16, lines 46-57: “In one aspect, a computer implemented method for generating data representative of an emergency vehicle warning and/or alternate vehicle route may be provided. The method may include (1) receiving, generating, or collecting, via or at one or more processors (such as processors associated with an emergency vehicle, non-emergency vehicle, and/or remote servers), emergency vehicle data via wireless communication and/or data transmission, wherein the emergency vehicle data is representative of: emergency vehicle origination location data, emergency vehicle current location data, emergency vehicle route data, emergency vehicle destination location data, and/or type of emergency.” [Comment: Since the vehicle is en route to an incident, the vehicle data serves as “response vehicle at or responding to the incident,” and “type of emergency” serves as “data regarding … an incident.”]); determining, based on the alert data, a first distribution area for a first alert (Column 16, lines 25-29: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium may include an effected geographic area data generation module that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, may cause the processor to generate effected geographic area data based upon the emergency vehicle data”); and providing the alert data … to a wireless emergency alert system (Column 11, lines 52-56: “The processor 225 may execute the location and emergency status data transmission module 325 to cause the processor 225 to transmit emergency vehicle data to, for example, a processor of a remote emergency management services computing device (e.g., processor 250)”), wherein the wireless emergency alert system is configured to distribute the first alert including the alert data to user devices positioned within the first distribution area (Column 13, lines 23-27: “The processor 250 may execute the emergency management services data transmission module 530 to cause the processor 250 to transmit emergency vehicle data and/or emergency vehicle warning data to a processor of a non-emergency vehicle device (e.g., processor 275 of FIG. 2)”; Column 16, lines 25-34: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium may include … an emergency vehicle data warning transmission module that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, may cause the processor to transmit emergency vehicle warning data and/or alternate routing data to non-emergency vehicles based upon the effected geographic area data.”).”
Grant doesn’t teach, “providing … the first distribution area to a wireless emergency alert system …”
Sennett et al. teaches, “providing the alert data and the first distribution area to a wireless emergency alert system … (Column 4, lines 4-24: “The relevant geographic area affected by the emergency event may be determined in a number of ways, such as … in the Emergency Operations Center 111 … Alternately, … the Emergency Operations Center 111 may analyze the type of emergency and the location and provide the alert message with a specified affected geographical area. The alert messages maybe provided by the emergency alert server 112 to the broadcast server 114 …”)”
Please note that this is the same distribution area teaching of Sennett et al. as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivations apply (KSR(A), TSM; MPEP 2143).
Per claim 12, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 11.
Grant further teaches, “The method of claim 11, further comprising: determining, based on the alert data, a second distribution area for a second alert (Column 5, lines 53-54: “… vehicles directly in front of it and/or along its route of travel.” [Comment: as stated for claim 9, the area directly in front serves as the first area, the area along the route serves as the second area.]); and providing the alert data … to the wireless emergency alert system such that the wireless emergency alert system distributes the second alert to the user devices positioned withing the second distribution area (Column 5, lines 56-54: “In one embodiment, an autonomous vehicle may be in direct or indirect wireless communication or data transmission with a smart emergency vehicle. As the smart emergency vehicle travels to the scene of an … event, such as a vehicle accident, fire, medical emergency, or police emergency, the smart emergency vehicle may broadcast or transmit … certain information to vehicles directly in front of it and/or along its route of travel.” [Comment: Note that that “direct or indirect” communication means the vehicle can communicate with the wireless emergency alert system such that it is the one broadcasting.]).”
Grant doesn’t further teach, “… providing … the second distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system …”
Sennett et al. further teaches, “… providing the alert data and the second distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system (Column 4, lines 4-24: “The relevant geographic area affected by the emergency event may be determined in a number of ways, such as … in the Emergency Operations Center 111 … Alternately, … the Emergency Operations Center 111 may analyze the type of emergency and the location and provide the alert message with a specified affected geographical area. The alert messages maybe provided by the emergency alert server 112 to the broadcast server 114 …”) …”
Please note that this is the same distribution area teaching of Sennett et al. as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivations apply (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 13, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 12.
Grant further teaches, “The method of claim 12, wherein: the first distribution area corresponds to a first area that is affected by the at least one of the incident or the response vehicle; the second distribution area corresponds to a second area that is predicted to be affected by the at least one of the incident or the response vehicle; and the second distribution area does not overlap with the first distribution area (Column 5, lines 53-54: “… vehicles directly in front of it and/or along its route of travel.” [Comment: directly in front of the emergency vehicle and the area later in the route are two distinct areas that cannot overlap, as if a point along the route were directly in front, then it would no longer be along the route.]).”
Per claim 14, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 11.
Grant further teaches, “The method of claim 11, further comprising: receiving an update to the alert data; determining if the update to the alert data results in a change to the first alert or the first distribution area; responsive to the update to the alert data resulting in a change to the first alert or the first distribution area, determining an updated distribution area for an updated alert; and providing the alert data … to the wireless emergency alert system such that the wireless emergency alert system distributes the updated alert to the user devices positioned withing the updated distribution area (Column 4, lines 29-39: “Accordingly, the systems and methods of the present disclosure generally relate to generating emergency vehicle warnings (and/or alternate vehicle routing). More particularly, the methods and systems relate to generating data representative of emergency vehicle warnings (and/or alternate vehicle routing) based upon real-time information related to an emergency vehicle. The information related to the emergency vehicle may include, for example, emergency vehicle origination location data, emergency vehicle current location data, emergency vehicle route data, and/or emergency vehicle destination location data.” [Comment: real-time data inherently means constantly updating data.]; Column 5, lines 48-54: “As the smart emergency vehicle travels to the scene of an insurance-related event, such as a vehicle accident, fire, medical emergency, or police emergency, the smart emergency vehicle may broadcast or transmit (via a vehicle-mounted transceiver) certain information to vehicles directly in front of it and/or along its route of travel.” [Comment: if the distribution zone is relative to a moving vehicle, it is inherently distributing to an updated area.]).”
Grant doesn’t further teach, “… providing … the updated distribution area to the wireless emergency system …”
Sennett et al. further teaches, “… providing the alert data and the updated distribution area to the wireless emergency system (Column 4, lines 4-24: “The relevant geographic area affected by the emergency event may be determined in a number of ways, such as … in the Emergency Operations Center 111 … Alternately, … the Emergency Operations Center 111 may analyze the type of emergency and the location and provide the alert message with a specified affected geographical area. The alert messages maybe provided by the emergency alert server 112 to the broadcast server 114 …”) …”
Please note that this is the same distribution area teaching of Sennett et al. as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivations apply (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 15, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 14.
Grant further teaches, “The method of claim 14, wherein the update to the alert data includes at least one of a change in a location of the response vehicle, a change in a speed of the response vehicle, or a change in a severity of the incident (Column 5, lines 48-54: “As the smart emergency vehicle travels to the scene of an insurance-related event, such as a vehicle accident, fire, medical emergency, or police emergency, the smart emergency vehicle may broadcast or transmit (via a vehicle-mounted transceiver) certain information to vehicles directly in front of it and/or along its route of travel.”; column 19, lines 8-19: “In one another aspect, a computer implemented method for generating data representative of an emergency response vehicle warning and/or alternate vehicle route may be provided. The method may include (1) receiving, via or at one or more processors mounted on an autonomous, non-emergency response vehicle, emergency response vehicle data via wireless communication and/or data transmission, wherein the emergency response vehicle data is representative of: emergency response vehicle origin, current location, current speed, current heading, current route, and/or current destination, and/or type of emergency, such as a vehicle accident or weather event” [Comment: transmitting, in real-time, current location and current speed, is functionally identical to updating the location and speed; updating the type of emergency is even more detail than updating the severity of the incident.]”).”
Grant teaches the computer system for generating emergency vehicle warning data based upon the emergency vehicle warning data, and a block diagram for an emergency vehicle device for generating emergency vehicle data and/or emergency vehicle warning data. These are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, shown below, respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
415
392
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Per claim 16, Grant teaches, “An alert system (a computer system for generating emergency vehicle warning data 200) comprising: a vehicle system (EMS Vehicle Device 205; EMS Vehicle Device 300) configured to be positioned on a vehicle (emergency vehicle 120 [Comment: not shown in figures above.]), the vehicle system including a sensor configured to generate sensor data associated with the vehicle (GPS 227; Column 19, line 63 to column 20, line 2: “In one aspect, a computer implemented method for generating data representative of an emergency response vehicle warning and/or alternate vehicle route may be provided. The method may include (1) generating or collecting, via or at one or more processors mounted on an emergency response vehicle, emergency response vehicle data (such as from vehicle-mounted sensors) …”); and one or more processing circuits (Processor 225) configured to: acquire the sensor data (Location data Generation Module 315; Column 11, lines 42-46: “The processor 225 may execute the location data generation module 315 to cause the processor 225 to generate emergency vehicle location data based upon, for example, a global positioning system (GPS) 227 signal (block 610).”); acquire alert data regarding the vehicle at or responding to an incident (Emergency Status Data Generation Module 320; Column 11, lines 46-51: “The processor 225 may execute the emergency status data generation module 320 to cause the processor 225 to generate emergency status data (block 615). The emergency status data may be indicative of whether an associated emergency vehicle is, for example, currently in motion, or is currently stationary.”); determine, based on the alert data and the sensor data, a distribution area for an alert (Memory 220; Column 8, lines 37-43: “An emergency vehicle device 205 may include a memory 220 and a processor 225 for storing and executing, respectively, a module 221. The module 221, stored in the memory 220 as a set of computer-readable instructions, may be related to an application for generating emergency vehicle warning data … based upon emergency vehicle data”; Column 16, lines 25-29: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium may include an effected geographic area data generation module that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, may cause the processor to generate effected geographic area data based upon the emergency vehicle data …”) and provide the alert data … to a wireless emergency alert system (Location Data and Emergency Status Data Transmission Module 325; Column 11, lines 52-56: “The processor 225 may execute the location and emergency status data transmission module 325 to cause the processor 225 to transmit emergency vehicle data to, for example, a processor of a remote emergency management services computing device …”), wherein the wireless emergency alert system (Remote EMS Computing Device 210, using Processor 250) is configured to distribute the alert including the alert data to user devices positioned within the distribution area (Column 13, lines 23-27: “The processor 250 may execute the emergency management services data transmission module 530 to cause the processor 250 to transmit emergency vehicle data and/or emergency vehicle warning data to a processor of a non-emergency vehicle device (e.g., processor 275 of FIG. 2)”; Column 16, lines 25-34: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium may include … an emergency vehicle data warning transmission module that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, may cause the processor to transmit emergency vehicle warning data and/or alternate routing data to non-emergency vehicles based upon the effected geographic area data.”).”
Grant doesn’t teach, “… provide … the distribution area to a wireless emergency alert system …”
Sennett et al. teaches, “… provide the alert data and the distribution area to a wireless emergency alert system (Column 4, lines 4-24: “The relevant geographic area affected by the emergency event may be determined in a number of ways, such as … in the Emergency Operations Center 111 … Alternately, … the Emergency Operations Center 111 may analyze the type of emergency and the location and provide the alert message with a specified affected geographical area. The alert messages maybe provided by the emergency alert server 112 to the broadcast server 114 …”) …”
Please note that this is the same distribution area teaching of Sennett et al. as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivations apply (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 17, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 16.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 16, wherein: the vehicle system includes a user interface configured to receive a user input (Touch/Input Keyboard 230); … the one or more processing circuits are configured to receive, from the user interface, an activation of the alert based on the user input received by the user interface; and the one or more processing circuits are configured to provide the alert data and the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system responsive to receiving the activation (Column 9, lines 1-9: “An emergency vehicle device 205 may include a user input device 230, such as a touch input/keyboard/pointing device (e.g., a mouse) that provides a mechanism for a user of the emergency vehicle device 205 to launch an emergency vehicle device … application and, for example, to interact with a system for generating emergency vehicle warning data, … based upon emergency vehicle data and/or non-emergency vehicle data.”).”
Grant teaches the user being able to activate the app that could initiate the emergency vehicle warning data system in the citation above, but doesn’t explicitly require the user’s action before the data handling, and thus doesn’t teach “… prior to providing the alert data and the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system … receive … an activation of the alert …”
Sennett et al. further teaches, “… prior to providing the alert data and the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system (Column 4, lines 14-18: “The alert message initiator 108, such as the first responder, could provide the range in the alert message to the emergency alert network 110 at 86, and base the geographic area on a range around a spill location that it is unsafe for humans.”) … receive … an activation of the alert (Column 3, lines 16-26: “An alert message initiator 108 may generate and provide an EAS alert message at 86 to an emergency alert network 110. The alert message initiator 108 may be, for example, a first responder to a scene (e.g., fire fighter, police officer, emergency medical technician, etc.), … an emergency manager of an entity (e.g., designated person in the emergency center of a hospital or campus), … an on-site Incident Commander, … or the like.) …”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the temporal requirement of the user input of Sennett et al. into the alert system of Grant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, specifically, combining known methods of initiating data transmission to yield predictable results, especially given that Grant and Sennett et al. are in the same field of endeavor of emergency alerts (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 19, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 16.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 16, wherein: the sensor data corresponds to a speed of the vehicle (Column 19, line 63 to column 20, line 4: “In one aspect, a computer implemented method for generating data representative of an emergency response vehicle warning … The method may include (1) generating or collecting, via or at one or more processors mounted on an emergency response vehicle, emergency response vehicle data (such as from vehicle-mounted sensors), wherein the emergency response vehicle data is representative of: … current speed, …”); and the one or more processing circuits determine the distribution area based on the speed of the vehicle (Column 16, lines 25-29: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium may include an effected geographic area data generation module that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, may cause the processor to generate effected geographic area data based upon the emergency vehicle data”).”
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. as applied to claims 1-6, 9-17, and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent US12033506B1 (hereinafter referred to as “Deyaf et al.”).
Per claim 7, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 6.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 6, wherein the activation includes at least one of an operator activating the alert (Column 9, lines 1-7: “An emergency vehicle device 205 may include a user input device 230, such as a touch input/keyboard/pointing device (e.g., a mouse) that provides a mechanism for a user of the emergency vehicle device 205 … to interact with a system for generating emergency vehicle warning data …”) …”
Grant further teaches, the idea of automating the warning system (Grant, column 8, lines 18-20: “As described in detail herein, the computer system 200 may automatically generate emergency vehicle warning data based upon, for example, emergency vehicle data”), as well as the collecting of the emergency vehicle data. However, Grant and Sennett et al. don’t explicitly name the triggers of the automation, and thus don’t further teach, “The alert system of claim 6, wherein the activation includes at least one of … a speed of the response vehicle exceeding a threshold, or an emergency lights or a siren of the response vehicle being activated.”
Deyaf et al. teaches, “The alert system of claim 6, wherein the activation (Column 13, lines 61 to column 14, line 1: “Turning now to FIG. 4, an exemplary block diagram illustrating an alert manager 126 for generating digital alerts based on light device activation notification(s) is shown. The alert manager 126 in some examples includes a set of rules(s) 246 having one or more parameters 254 which are applied to emergency vehicle data 402 associated with the activation of one or more smart light device(s) on a given emergency vehicle.”) includes at least one of … a speed of the response vehicle exceeding a threshold, or an emergency lights or a siren of the response vehicle being activated (Column 12, lines 22-30: “In one example, the rules 246 state that a digital alert notification should only be sent if an emergency light is activated while the emergency vehicle is in motion. … In another example, the rules can include a requirement that the digital alert notification should only be sent if the emergency vehicle light device(s) are activated, and the emergency vehicle speed exceeds a threshold minimum speed.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the activation method of Deyaf et al. into the emergency vehicle warning system of Grant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, specifically the use of specific triggers of automation as taught by Deyaf et al. to improve the automation of the alert system as taught by Grant in the same way (KSR(C), MPEP 2143).
Per claim 20, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 16.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 16, wherein: the vehicle includes emergency lights configured to provide a visual alert and a siren configured to provide an audible alert (Column 1, lines 38-39: “Additionally, conventionally lights and sirens have long been used to alert drivers of approaching EMS vehicles.”); prior to providing the alert data … to the wireless emergency alert system, the one or more processing circuits are configured to receive an indication …; and the one or more processing circuits are configured to provide the alert data … to the wireless emergency alert system responsive to receiving the indication (Column 11, lines 52-56: “The processor 225 may execute the location and emergency status data transmission module 325 to cause the processor 225 to transmit emergency vehicle data to, for example, a processor of a remote emergency management services computing device (e.g., processor 250)”).”
Grant doesn’t further teach, “… prior to providing … the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system, … indication of an activation of at least one of the emergency lights or the siren; … provide … the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system responsive to receiving the indication.”
Sennett et al. further teaches, “… prior to providing … the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system, … provide … the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system responsive to receiving the indication (Column 3, lines 16-26: “An alert message initiator 108 may generate and provide an EAS alert message at 86 to an emergency alert network 110. The alert message initiator 108 may be, for example, a first responder to a scene (e.g., fire fighter, police officer, emergency medical technician, etc.), … an automated system (e.g., a fire alarm, electronic sensors that detect toxic gas), … or the like.”).”
Please note that this is the same distribution area teaching of Sennett et al. as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivations apply (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Grant and Sennett et al. don’t further teach, “… indication of an activation of at least one of the emergency lights or the siren …”
Deyaf et al. teaches, “… indication of an activation of at least one of the emergency lights (Column 4, lines 52-55: “A smart light device may be referred to as an emergency light device, a warning light device, and/or a surface mounted light device on an emergency vehicle.”; Column 13, lines 61 to column 14, line 1: “Turning now to FIG. 4, an exemplary block diagram illustrating an alert manager 126 for generating digital alerts based on light device activation notification(s) is shown. The alert manager 126 in some examples includes a set of rules(s) 246 having one or more parameters 254 which are applied to emergency vehicle data 402 associated with the activation of one or more smart light device(s) on a given emergency vehicle.”; Column 7, lines 38-41: “The digital alerts are provided when an emergency vehicle light bar or other surface mounted emergency warning light device is activated.”) or the siren (Column 8, lines 29-37: “In another example, if the smart light device is activated without activation of a siren on the vehicle, a low priority digital alert is provided. If the siren is activated simultaneously, the digital alert is higher priority. In these examples, the smart light device alert manager receives data indicating whether a siren device is activated in conjunction with the light bar. If the siren is not activated but the emergency light is turned on, the digital alert is lower priority or not provided at all.”) …”
Please note that this is the same activation teaching of Deyaf et al. as stated for claim 7 above, and thus the same motivations apply (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. as applied to claims 1-6, 9-17, and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent US11963080B1 (hereinafter referred to as "Balmakhtar et al.").
Per claim 8, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 1.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: … provide the alert data … to the wireless emergency alert system (Column 11, lines 52-56: “The processor 225 may execute the location and emergency status data transmission module 325 to cause the processor 225 to transmit emergency vehicle data to, for example, a processor of a remote emergency management services computing device (e.g., processor 250)”) … such that the wireless emergency alert system distributes the alert to the user devices positioned within the distribution area (Column 13, lines 23-27: “The processor 250 may execute the emergency management services data transmission module 530 to cause the processor 250 to transmit emergency vehicle data and/or emergency vehicle warning data to a processor of a non-emergency vehicle device (e.g., processor 275 of FIG. 2)”; Column 16, lines 25-34: “The non-transitory computer-readable medium may include … an emergency vehicle data warning transmission module that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, may cause the processor to transmit emergency vehicle warning data and/or alternate routing data to non-emergency vehicles based upon the effected geographic area data.”)…”
Grant doesn’t further teach, “… wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: determine, based on at the alert data, a frequency associated with the alert; and provide … the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system with the frequency such that the wireless emergency alert system distributes the alert … with the frequency.”
Sennett et al. further teaches, “… wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: … provide the alert data and the distribution area to the wireless emergency alert system (Column 4, lines 4-24: “The relevant geographic area affected by the emergency event may be determined in a number of ways, such as … in the Emergency Operations Center 111 … Alternately, … the Emergency Operations Center 111 may analyze the type of emergency and the location and provide the alert message with a specified affected geographical area. The alert messages maybe provided by the emergency alert server 112 to the broadcast server 114 …” [Comment: for the purposes of this examination, “Emergency Operations Center 111”, which contains the “Emergency Alert Server 112” will serve as the “alert system” and “broadcast server” will serve as “wireless emergency alert system.”]) …”
Please note that this is the same distribution area teaching of Sennett et al. as stated for claim 1 above, and thus the same motivations apply (KSR(A), MPEP 2143).
Grant and Sennett et al. don’t further teach, “… wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: determine, based on at the alert data, a frequency associated with the alert; and provide the alert … to the wireless emergency alert system with the frequency such that the wireless emergency alert system distributes the alert … with the frequency.”
Balmakhtar et al. teaches, “The alert system of claim 1 (Column 4, lines 5-18: “A method as disclosed herein includes receiving an alert at a network edge computing system serving wireless devices within a distribution area. The alert, which includes content and metadata, is received by a centralized alert orchestrator. The central alert orchestrator transfers the alert to regional alert systems at selected edge locations. At the selected edge locations, the edge computing system processes the received alert … The processing includes evaluating the alert based on characteristics of the distribution area, … and distributing the … alert to at least some of the wireless devices within the distribution area.” [Comment: “centralized alert orchestrator” serves as “alert system”, “regional alert systems at selected edge locations” serves as the wireless alert system, and “wireless devices” serves as the “user devices.”]), wherein the one or more processing circuits are configured to: determine, based on at the alert data, a frequency associated with the alert (Column 13 lines 46-59: “a central alert orchestrator 500 … An alert processor 506 may process the received alerts using rules 510 stored in the storage area 508. The processing of the alert processor 506 includes determining a distribution pattern of the alerts based on information stored in the target area database 520.”; Column 4 lines 66-67: “The distribution pattern may include, for example, a distribution frequency ...”); and provide the alert … to the wireless emergency alert system with the frequency (Column 15, lines 19-20: “In step 810, an alert is received at edge locations.”; Column 15, lines 25-27: “In step 820, the regional alert processor 410 at the edge location facilities may retrieve the content and metatdata (sic) of the alert.”; Column 5, lines 8-11: “… the received metadata, which may include, for example, … distribution frequency …”) such that the wireless emergency alert system distributes the alert … with the frequency (Column 15, lines 63-66: “If no modifications are required, in step 860, the regional alert system 400 at edge location facility distributes the original alert in accordance with received distribution parameters.”).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transmission frequency of Balmakhtar et al. into the alert system of Grant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, specifically, use of incident data increasing alert frequency as taught by Balmakhtar et al. to improve the alert system as taught by Grant in the same way (KSR(C), MPEP 2143).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. as applied to claims 1-6, 9-17, and 19 above, and further in view of US Patent US10127813B2 (hereinafter referred to as “Walsh et al.”).
Per claim 18, the combination of Grant and Sennett et al. teaches the alert system of claim 16.
Grant further teaches, “The alert system of claim 16, wherein: the sensor data corresponds to a location of the vehicle (Location data Generation Module 315; Column 11, lines 42-46: “The processor 225 may execute the location data generation module 315 to cause the processor 225 to generate emergency vehicle location data based upon, for example, a global positioning system (GPS) 227 signal (block 610).”); …”
Grant continues to teach having the distribution be determined based on origin, destination or path of emergency vehicle (Column 13, lines 14-18: “The effected geographic area data may be representative of a geographic area in which an emergency vehicle will travel, an emergency vehicle origination location, an emergency vehicle driving route, and/or an emergency vehicle destination location.”), but does not explicitly mention the speed limit and so doesn’t further teach, “… and the one or more processing circuits determine the distribution area based on a speed limit associated with the location of the vehicle.”
Walsh et al. teaches, “… and the one or more processing circuits determine the distribution area (Column 9, lines 24-38: “The alert management computing device receives the emergency vehicle alert request message from the emergency vehicle transmitter device and identifies an alert zone based on the emergency vehicle alert request message. In other words, the alert management computing device defines a range of locations where the emergency vehicle is likely to go. Such an area may be referred to as an “alert zone.” … The alert zone may include any potential path that the emergency vehicle may travel upon.”) based on a speed limit associated with the location of the vehicle (Column 10, lines 7-9: “… In defining the alert zone, the alert management computing device predicts where the emergency vehicle may be within a particular period of time.”; Column 9, lines 60-65: “The alert management computing device also receives mapping information to identify the present and projected location of the emergency vehicle in the context of roads and highways. … Mapping information may include information regarding speed limits for roads…” [Comment: in other words, the area is determined by predictive measurements, and these measurements can take into account the speed limit associated with the location of the vehicle.]).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine distribution area determination of Walsh et al. into the alert system of Grant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because this is the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, specifically, use of the speed limit as taught by Walsh et al. to improve the geographical consideration for distribution area determination as taught by Grant in the same way (KSR(C), MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Whelen (US11758354B2) teaches a system for intent-based geofencing for emergency vehicles.
Whelen et al. (US20200221250A1) teaches a system for velocity-based geofencing for emergency vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE PAUL JEAN DIXNEUF whose telephone number is (571)270-5794. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/ALEXANDRE PAUL JEAN DIXNEUF/Examiner, Art Unit 2631
/HANNAH S WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights