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 .
Drawings.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show details as described in the specification. New drawings of Figs. 4A, 4B, 4C, 4E, 4F, 4G, 4H, 4J, 4K, 4L, and 4M are required. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 21-25, 28-32, and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldman et al. (US 20110142207 A1) in view of Martyin et al. (US 20200274962 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Goldman et al. teach A method, comprising:
receiving communications about a potential emergency event from one or more of a plurality of emergency monitoring entities (Goldman [0024] emergency messages directed to a first emergency response organization at a network node in a communication network during a first time window may be detected. The emergency messages may be originated by user devices) to target a location of the potential emergency event (Goldman [0027] location information for at least a portion of the emergency messages detected in 102 is collected); and
indicating the potential emergency event by transmitting one or more notifications to one or more emergency response entities (Goldman [0025] a first notification message may be sent to a second emergency response organization), at least in part based on a combined number of instances exceeding an emergency event threshold (Goldman [0025] a first emergency message cluster to the first emergency response organization may be detected at least in part by determining a quantity of emergency messages detected during the first time window exceeds a first threshold value ... a first notification message may be sent to a second emergency response organization in response to detecting the first emergency message cluster ), wherein the combined number of instances is produced at least in part based on at least one of a number of instances of the location, a number of instances of a type of emergency, or a number of instances of a particular day or time (Goldman [0025] a quantity of emergency messages detected during the first time window )
Goldman et al.do not teach
receiving a data report of a social media post from one or more social media platforms; and
the number of instances included in a data report.
In a similar endeavor, Martin et al. teach
receiving a data report of a social media post from one or more social media platforms (Martin [0018] detecting one or more social media posts indicative of the emergency , Martin [0087] the EMS 820 receives social media data from the one or more sources of social media data 860 and analyzes the social media data for potential emergencies, Martin [0088] the EMS receives social media posts from a social media feed and passes the social media posts through one or more filtering layers 961. The filtering layers can filter the social media posts for location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Goldman et al. by incorporating Martin et al. social media data reception to combine Goldman messages and Martin social media posts as a combined number of instances included in a data report at to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining a majority of the communications are within a predetermined distance of the location of the potential emergency event (Goldman [0021] the amount of emergency messages from within a given predefined geographic boundary in a defined period of time exceeds a predefined threshold) .
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The method of claim 21, further comprising:
monitoring one or more identified user accounts of the one or more social media platforms or those user accounts that attend the location (Martin [0012] the one or more social media posts are posted by the user potentially affected by the emergency).
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The method of claim 21, further comprising:
monitoring one or more social media groups associated with the location, those groups that attend the location (Martin [0087] the EMS 820 receives social media data from the one or more sources of social media data 860... initiate autonomous communication sessions with a group of communication devices 810B including a communication device 810 associated with each of the one or more users potentially affected by the emergency), or groups that name or identify the location as a point of interest.
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The method of claim 21, wherein the transmitting is performed, at least in part based on an identification of a predetermined number of social media messages having a suspicious image, a derogatory or threatening comment, a threat, or an identification of the location (Martin [0087] the EMS 820 receives social media data from the one or more sources of social media data 860... initiate autonomous communication sessions with a group of communication devices 810B including a communication device 810 associated with each of the one or more users potentially affected by the emergency) .
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
Regarding claim 28, Goldman et al. teach An apparatus (Goldman [0024] a first emergency response organization at a network node), comprising:
a memory that stores a program (Note: inherent in a network node); and
a processor (Note: inherent in a network node ) configured to execute the program to
receive communications about a potential emergency event from one or more of a plurality of emergency monitoring entities (Goldman [0024] emergency messages directed to a first emergency response organization at a network node in a communication network during a first time window may be detected. The emergency messages may be originated by user devices) to target a location of the potential emergency event (Goldman [0027] location information for at least a portion of the emergency messages detected in 102 is collected); and
indicate the potential emergency event by transmitting one or more notifications to one or more emergency response entities (Goldman [0025] a first notification message may be sent to a second emergency response organization), at least in part based on a combined number of instances exceeding an emergency event threshold (Goldman [0025] a first emergency message cluster to the first emergency response organization may be detected at least in part by determining a quantity of emergency messages detected during the first time window exceeds a first threshold value ... a first notification message may be sent to a second emergency response organization in response to detecting the first emergency message cluster ), wherein the combined number of instances is produced at least in part based on at least one of a number of instances of the location, a number of instances of a type of emergency, or a number of instances of a particular day or time (Goldman [0025] a quantity of emergency messages detected during the first time window )
Goldman et al.do not teach
receive a data report of a social media post from one or more social media platforms; and
the number of instances included in a data report.
In a similar endeavor, Martin et al. teach
receive a data report of a social media post from one or more social media platforms (Martin [0018] detecting one or more social media posts indicative of the emergency , Martin [0087] the EMS 820 receives social media data from the one or more sources of social media data 860 and analyzes the social media data for potential emergencies, Martin [0088] the EMS receives social media posts from a social media feed and passes the social media posts through one or more filtering layers 961. The filtering layers can filter the social media posts for location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Goldman et al. by incorporating Martin et al. social media data reception to combine Goldman messages and Martin social media posts as a combined number of instances included in a data report at to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The apparatus of claim 28, wherein the processor further is configured to determine a majority of the communications are within a predetermined distance of the location of the potential emergency event (Goldman [0021] the amount of emergency messages from within a given predefined geographic boundary in a defined period of time exceeds a predefined threshold)
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The apparatus of claim 28, wherein the processor further is configured to monitor one or more identified user accounts of the one or more social media platforms or those user accounts that attend the location (Martin [0012] the one or more social media posts are posted by the user potentially affected by the emergency).
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The apparatus of claim 28, wherein the processor further is configured to monitor one or more social media groups associated with the location, those groups that attend the location (Martin [0087] the EMS 820 receives social media data from the one or more sources of social media data 860... initiate autonomous communication sessions with a group of communication devices 810B including a communication device 810 associated with each of the one or more users potentially affected by the emergency), or groups that name or identify the location as a point of interest.
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The apparatus of claim 28, wherein the processor further is configured to transmit the one or more notifications, at least in part based on an identification of a predetermined number of social media messages having a suspicious image, a derogatory or threatening comment, a threat, or an identification of the location (Martin [0087] the EMS 820 receives social media data from the one or more sources of social media data 860... initiate autonomous communication sessions with a group of communication devices 810B including a communication device 810 associated with each of the one or more users potentially affected by the emergency) .
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
.
Regarding claim 35, Goldman et al. teach A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium (Note: inherent in a network node ) configured to store instructions that, when executed, cause a processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving communications about a potential emergency event from one or more of a plurality of emergency monitoring entities (Goldman [0024] emergency messages directed to a first emergency response organization at a network node in a communication network during a first time window may be detected. The emergency messages may be originated by user devices) to target a location of the potential emergency event (Goldman [0027] location information for at least a portion of the emergency messages detected in 102 is collected); and
indicating the potential emergency event by transmitting one or more notifications to one or more emergency response entities (Goldman [0025] a first notification message may be sent to a second emergency response organization), at least in part based on a combined number of instances exceeding an emergency event threshold (Goldman [0025] a first emergency message cluster to the first emergency response organization may be detected at least in part by determining a quantity of emergency messages detected during the first time window exceeds a first threshold value ... a first notification message may be sent to a second emergency response organization in response to detecting the first emergency message cluster ), wherein the combined number of instances is produced at least in part based on at least one of a number of instances of the location, a number of instances of a type of emergency, or a number of instances of a particular day or time (Goldman [0025] a quantity of emergency messages detected during the first time window )
Goldman et al.do not teach
receiving a data report of a social media post from one or more social media platforms; and
the number of instances included in a data report.
In a similar endeavor, Martin et al. teach
receiving a data report of a social media post from one or more social media platforms (Martin [0018] detecting one or more social media posts indicative of the emergency , Martin [0087] the EMS 820 receives social media data from the one or more sources of social media data 860 and analyzes the social media data for potential emergencies, Martin [0088] the EMS receives social media posts from a social media feed and passes the social media posts through one or more filtering layers 961. The filtering layers can filter the social media posts for location).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the examined application to have modified Goldman et al. by incorporating Martin et al. social media data reception to combine Goldman messages and Martin social media posts as a combined number of instances included in a data report at to arrive at the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The medium of claim 35, the operations further comprising:
determining a majority of the communications are within a predetermined distance of the location of the potential emergency event (Goldman [0021] the amount of emergency messages from within a given predefined geographic boundary in a defined period of time exceeds a predefined threshold) .
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The medium of claim 35, the operations further comprising:
monitoring one or more identified user accounts of the one or more social media platforms (Martin [0012] the one or more social media posts are posted by the user potentially affected by the emergency), one or more social media groups associated with the location, those groups that attend the location (Martin [0087] the EMS 820 receives social media data from the one or more sources of social media data 860... initiate autonomous communication sessions with a group of communication devices 810B including a communication device 810 associated with each of the one or more users potentially affected by the emergency), or groups that name or identify the location as a point of interest.
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The medium of claim 35, wherein the transmitting is performed, at least in part based on an identification of a predetermined number of social media messages having a suspicious image, a derogatory or threatening comment, a threat, or an identification of the location (Martin [0087] the EMS 820 receives social media data from the one or more sources of social media data 860... initiate autonomous communication sessions with a group of communication devices 810B including a communication device 810 associated with each of the one or more users potentially affected by the emergency) .
The motivation of doing so would have improved the emergency identification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-27, 33-34, and 39-40 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The method of claim 21, further comprising:
determining the plurality of emergency monitoring entities (Martin [0027] determine a number of persons involved in the emergency);
determining a level of severity of the potential emergency event (Martin [[0027] the severity index is determined based at least in part on the number of persons involved in the emergency )
However, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. fails to teach
The plurality have exceeded a predetermined density threshold at a predetermined radius from the location;
level of severity of the potential emergency event is elevated, at least in part based on the predetermined density threshold; and
monitoring data with a larger frequency or larger number of sensors, at least in part based on the determining the level, wherein the one or more notifications are transmitted, at least in part based on the level of severity.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. does not teach The method of claim 26, wherein the predetermined density threshold is determined to be exceeded, at least in part based on a number of people at the location or a tracking of mobile devices at the location.
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The apparatus of claim 28, wherein the processor further is configured to determine the plurality of emergency monitoring entities (Martin [0027] determine a number of persons involved in the emergency)to perform a determination that a level of severity of the potential emergency event (Martin [[0027] the severity index is determined based at least in part on the number of persons involved in the emergency )
However, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. fails to teach
The plurality have exceeded a predetermined density threshold at a predetermined radius from the location;
level of severity of the potential emergency event is elevated, at least in part based on the predetermined density threshold; and
monitoring data with a larger frequency or larger number of sensors, at least in part based on the determining the level, wherein the one or more notifications are transmitted, at least in part based on the level of severity.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. does not teach The apparatus of claim 33, wherein the predetermined density threshold is determined to be exceeded, at least in part based on a number of people at the location or a tracking of mobile devices at the location.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. teaches The medium of claim 35, the operations further comprising:
determining the plurality of emergency monitoring entities (Martin [0027] determine a number of persons involved in the emergency);
determining a level of severity of the potential emergency event (Martin [[0027] the severity index is determined based at least in part on the number of persons involved in the emergency )
However, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. fails to teach
The plurality have exceeded a predetermined density threshold at a predetermined radius from the location;
level of severity of the potential emergency event is elevated, at least in part based on the predetermined density threshold; and
monitoring data with a larger frequency or larger number of sensors, at least in part based on the determining the level, wherein the one or more notifications are transmitted, at least in part based on the level of severity.
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Goldman and Martin et al. does not teach The medium of claim 39, wherein the predetermined density threshold is determined to be exceeded, at least in part based on a number of people at the location or a tracking of mobile devices at the location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAID M ELNOUBI whose telephone number is (571)272-9732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM to 6:00PM ET.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/SAID M ELNOUBI/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights