DETAILED ACTION
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 Patent No. 12,132,859 B2.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in the continuations are broader than the ones in patent, broad claims in the continuation application are rejected previously patented narrow claims. For example, claim 1 of the present invention is the same as claim 1 of Patent No. 12,132,859 B2 except that “transcribing a recording of the 911 call that is established in response to the 911 call request.” Therefore, claim 1 of the present invention is broader than the patented claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by U.S Pub. No. 2010/0195805 A1 to ZEIGLER et al. (hereinafter “ZEIGLER”).
Regarding claim 1, ZEIGLER teaches a method, comprising: in response to receiving a 911 call request from a caller using a calling device associated with an originating telephone number (“TN”) (paragraphs [0010] and [0024]; a calling party 102 may initiate a call to 911 over a network 104, eventually resulting in the call arriving at a public safety answering point (PSAP)), determining, using a computing system, whether a user profile associated with at least one of the caller or the originating TN contains one or more registered third parties on a 911 call notification list; and based on a determination that the user profile contains at least one registered third party on the 911 call notification list associated with the at least one of the caller or the originating TN (paragraphs [0010] and [0013]; the E-911 service platform 109 may provide the ability to select an appropriate PSAP, as well as the ability to identify notification list members 106 based upon information available to the E-911 service platform 109), sending, using the computing system, a first message to each of the at least one registered third party indicating that the caller has called 911 (Abstract, paragraphs [0010] and [0024]; identifying a telephone call as being an emergency call, identifying a calling party of the telephone call, locating a notification list associated with the identified calling party, and sending a notification to members on the notification list).
Regarding claim 2, ZEIGLER teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the computing system comprises at least one of a call server, a call controller, a call manager, a public safety answering point (“PSAP”) computing system, a network service provider computing system, a server computer over a network, a cloud-based computing system, or a distributed computing system (paragraphs [0010] and [0018]-[0019]; a calling party 102 may initiate a call to 911 over a network 104, eventually resulting in the call arriving at a public safety answering point (PSAP), where the call will be handled by an emergency operator).
Regarding claim 3, ZEIGLER teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the user profile associated with the at least one of the caller or the originating TN is accessible and updateable by one or more administrators associated with the originating TN (paragraphs [0013]-[0014], [0017] and [0019]; the application server 112 may additionally, or in place of the selective router 110, query a subscriber database 114 in order to determine if the calling party is a subscriber to 911 family notification. The application server 112 may receive the information from the subscriber database 114 and initiate a notification 105 with notification list members 106. A notification 105 sent to the notification list members 106 may include a short message service (SMS) or text message, e-mail, pre-recorded phone message, or any other type notification in which notification list members 106 have the ability to access).
Regarding claim 4, ZEIGLER teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the caller is an individual, wherein the one or more administrators each comprises at least one of a guardian of the caller, an adult child of the caller, a parent of the caller, a grandparent of the caller, a sibling of the caller, or another relative of the caller, wherein the one or more registered third parties on the 911 call notification list associated with the at least one of the caller or the originating TN each comprises at least one of the one or more administrators, an agent of the caller, a guardian of the caller, an adult child of the caller, a parent of the caller, a grandparent of the caller, a sibling of the caller, another relative of the caller, a friend of the caller, a neighbor of the caller, a doctor of the caller, a pharmacist of the caller, or a language translation service (paragraphs [0010],[0014] and [0024]; an application server 403 is present, the emergency notification module 404, or one or more similar modules, perform the functionality of gathering information from a subscriber database related to 911 family notification).
Regarding claim 5, ZEIGLER teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the caller is one of an employee, a contractor, an owner, or a guest or visitor of an entity associated with the originating TN, wherein the one or more administrators each comprises at least one of security personnel, a head of security, an executive assistant, a manager, an executive officer, a board member, or an owner of the entity, wherein the one or more registered third parties on the 911 call notification list each comprises at least one of the one or more administrators, an agent of the entity, security personnel of the entity, a head of security of the entity, an executive assistant of the entity, a manager of the entity, an executive officer of the entity, a board member of the entity, an owner of the entity, an attorney at a law firm representing the entity, an in-house attorney for the entity, one or more other employees of the entity working at a location associated with the 911 call request, one or more other employees of the entity working at a different location, or one or more other situation responders of the entity.
Regarding claim 6, ZEIGLER teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising: providing the one or more administrators with access to at least one of: call records associated with the 911 call request (paragraphs [0014], [0017] and [0021]; a notification 105 sent to the notification list members 106 may include a short message service (SMS) or text message, e-mail, pre-recorded phone message, or any other type notification in which notification list members 106 have the ability to access)
Regarding claim 7, ZEIGLER teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the access comprises at least one of access during the 911 call that is established in response to the 911 call request (paragraph [0025]; If a notification list is located for the calling party, in step 508 a notification or multiple notifications may be sent to members of the notification list. While not delaying the original emergency call, concurrently providing a notification to members of the notification list allows for an emergency situation to be known to relevant people as efficiently as possible).
Regarding claim 8, ZEIGLER teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the access comprises at least one of access via a web portal, access via a software application (“app”), or access via an interactive voice response (“IVR”) system (paragraphs [0013]-[0014], [0017], [0019], [0023]; the application server 112 may additionally, or in place of the selective router 110, query a subscriber database 114 in order to determine if the calling party is a subscriber to 911 family notification. The application server 112 may receive the information from the subscriber database 114 and initiate a notification 105 with notification list members 106. A notification 105 sent to the notification list members 106 may include a short message service (SMS) or text message, e-mail, pre-recorded phone message, or any other type notification in which notification list members 106 have the ability to access).
Regarding claim 9, ZEIGLER teaches the method of claim 1, wherein sending the first message to each of the at least one registered third party indicating that the caller has called 911 comprises sending at least one of an e-mail message, a short message service (“SMS”) message, a multimedia messaging service (“MMS”) message, or a text message to each of the at least one registered third party indicating that the caller has called 911 (paragraph [0024]; application server 403 using the emergency notification module 404, or a similar module, may be operable to send notification, such as an SMS text message, email, phone recording, or any other notification as determined by information located within the subscriber database).
Regarding claim 11, ZEIGLER teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising at least one of: sending, using the computing system, a group message to a plurality of registered third parties among the one or more registered third parties on the 911 call notification list (Abstract, paragraphs [0010] and [0024]; identifying a telephone call as being an emergency call, identifying a calling party of the telephone call, locating a notification list associated with the identified calling party, and sending a notification to members on the notification list).
Regarding claim 15, ZEIGLER teaches an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and a non-transitory computer readable medium communicatively coupled to the at least one processor, the non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer software comprising a set of instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to: in response to receiving a 911 call request from a caller using a calling device associated with an originating telephone number (“TN”) (paragraphs [0010] and [0024]; a calling party 102 may initiate a call to 911 over a network 104, eventually resulting in the call arriving at a public safety answering point (PSAP)), determine whether a user profile associated with at least one of the caller or the originating TN contains one or more registered third parties on a 911 call notification list; and based on a determination that the user profile contains at least one registered third party on the 911 call notification list associated with the at least one of the caller or the originating TN (paragraphs [0010] and [0013]; the E-911 service platform 109 may provide the ability to select an appropriate PSAP, as well as the ability to identify notification list members 106 based upon information available to the E-911 service platform 109), send a first message to each of the at least one registered third party indicating that the caller has called 911 (Abstract, paragraphs [0010] and [0024]; identifying a telephone call as being an emergency call, identifying a calling party of the telephone call, locating a notification list associated with the identified calling party, and sending a notification to members on the notification list).
Regarding claim 16, ZEIGLER teaches a system, comprising: a computing system, comprising: at least one first processor; and a first non-transitory computer readable medium communicatively coupled to the at least one first processor, the first non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon computer software comprising a first set of instructions that, when executed by the at least one first processor, causes the computing system to: in response to receiving a 911 call request from a caller using a calling device associated with an originating telephone number (“TN”) (paragraphs [0010] and [0024]; a calling party 102 may initiate a call to 911 over a network 104, eventually resulting in the call arriving at a public safety answering point (PSAP)), determine whether a user profile associated with at least one of the caller or the originating TN contains one or more registered third parties on a 911 call notification list; and based on a determination that the user profile contains at least one registered third party on the 911 call notification list associated with the at least one of the caller or the originating TN (paragraphs [0010] and [0013]; the E-911 service platform 109 may provide the ability to select an appropriate PSAP, as well as the ability to identify notification list members 106 based upon information available to the E-911 service platform 109), send a first message to each of the at least one registered third party indicating that the caller has called 911 (Abstract, paragraphs [0010] and [0024]; identifying a telephone call as being an emergency call, identifying a calling party of the telephone call, locating a notification list associated with the identified calling party, and sending a notification to members on the notification list).
Regarding claim 17, ZEIGLER teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the computing system comprises at least one of a call server, a call controller, a call manager, a public safety answering point (“PSAP”) computing system, a network service provider computing system, a server computer over a network, a cloud-based computing system, or a distributed computing system (paragraphs [0010] and [0018]-[0019]; a calling party 102 may initiate a call to 911 over a network 104, eventually resulting in the call arriving at a public safety answering point (PSAP), where the call will be handled by an emergency operator).
Regarding claim 18, ZEIGLER teaches the system of claim 16, wherein sending the first message to each of the at least one registered third party indicating that the caller has called 911 comprises sending at least one of an e-mail message, a short message service (“SMS”) message, a multimedia messaging service (“MMS”) message, or a text message to each of the at least one registered third party indicating that the caller has called 911 (paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0024]; application server 403 using the emergency notification module 404, or a similar module, may be operable to send notification, such as an SMS text message, email, phone recording, or any other notification as determined by information located within the subscriber database).
Regarding claim 19, ZEIGLER teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the first set of instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further causes the computing system to perform at least one of: send a group message to a plurality of registered third parties among the one or more registered third parties on the 911 call notification list (Abstract, paragraphs [0010] and [0024]; identifying a telephone call as being an emergency call, identifying a calling party of the telephone call, locating a notification list associated with the identified calling party, and sending a notification to members on the notification list).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Pub. No. 2010/0195805 A1 to ZEIGLER et al. (hereinafter “ZEIGLER”) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2011/0013541 A1 to Croy et al. (hereinafter “Croy”).
Regarding claim 12, ZEIGLER does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: establishing, using the computing system, a shared communication among the caller, a public safety answering point (“PSAP”) dispatcher, and one or more emergency responders, wherein the one or more emergency responders comprises at least one of one or more police officers, one or more firefighters, one or more emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”), one or more paramedics, or one or more language translators.
In the same field of endeavor, Croy teaches establishing, using the computing system, a shared communication among the caller, a public safety answering point (“PSAP”) dispatcher, and one or more emergency responders, wherein the one or more emergency responders comprises at least one of one or more police officers (Abstract , paragraphs [0041]-[0043]; Cold transfers can be avoided by Inviting participants to join a single emergency conference rather than passing an original call from party to party, e.g., from PSAP to police to ambulance, etc.).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify ZEIGLER’s teaching with a feature of establishing, using the computing system, a shared communication among the caller, a public safety answering point (“PSAP”) dispatcher, and one or more emergency responders, wherein the one or more emergency responders comprises at least one of one or more police officers as taught by Croy in order to join a single emergency conference rather than passing an emergency call from party to party (Abstract, Croy).
Regarding claim 13, ZEIGLER teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the shared communication comprises at least one of: a full conference bridge; a group e-mail message; a group short message service (“SMS”) message; a group multimedia messaging service (“MMS”) message; or a group text message; wherein the group e-mail message, the group SMS message, the group MMS message, or the group text message each comprises at least one of information regarding the caller, information regarding medical status of the caller, information regarding medication needs of the caller, information regarding one or more other individuals at a geographical location associated with at least one of the caller or the originating TN, information regarding medical status of the one or more other individuals, information regarding medication needs of the one or more other individuals, information regarding the geographical location associated with at least one of the caller or the originating TN, information regarding buildings or structures at the geographical location associated with at least one of the caller or the originating TN, or information regarding an emergency encountered by the caller (paragraphs [0014]-[0015] and [0024]; application server 403 using the emergency notification module 404, or a similar module, may be operable to send notification, such as an SMS text message, email, phone recording, or any other notification as determined by information located within the subscriber database).
Regarding claim 14, ZEIGLER does not teach the method of claim 1, further comprising, based on a determination that a 911 call fails to be established in response to the 911 call request, performing at least one of: alerting a 911 service provider indicating a failed 911 call; attempting to re-establish the 911 call; or re-routing call connections to re-establish the 911 call.
In the same field of endeavor, Croy teaches based on a determination that a 911 call fails to be established in response to the 911 call request, performing at least one of: alerting a 911 service provider indicating a failed 911 call; attempting to re-establish the 911 call; or re-routing call connections to re-establish the 911 call (paragraphs [0030] and [0056]; the scenario is given where an emergency 9-1-1 call is routed to a PSAP based on a presumed or default location of the VoIP caller, but in fact it turns out that the PSAP that receives the VoIP call is not the correct entity to handle emergency calls from the particular location that the VoIP caller is currently at. Such errors may occur, e.g., due to the user not updating the SLDB, bad routing, etc. In this scenario, the initial VoIP communications device dials 9-1-1, a conference line is initiated by the soft switch, an initially determined PSAP receives an Invite message to join the VoIP emergency conference bridge).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify ZEIGLER’s teaching with a feature of based on a determination that a 911 call fails to be established in response to the 911 call request, performing at least one of: alerting a 911 service provider indicating a failed 911 call; attempting to re-establish the 911 call; or re-routing call connections to re-establish the 911 call as taught by Croy in order to join a single emergency conference rather than passing an emergency call from party to party (Abstract, Croy).
Regarding claim 20, ZEIGLER does not teach the system of claim 16, wherein the first set of instructions, when executed by the at least one first processor, further causes the computing system to: establish a shared communication among the caller, a public safety answering point (“PSAP”) dispatcher, and one or more emergency responders, wherein the one or more emergency responders comprises at least one of one or more police officers, one or more firefighters, one or more emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”), one or more paramedics, or one or more language translators.
In the same field of endeavor, Croy teaches establish a shared communication among the caller, a public safety answering point (“PSAP”) dispatcher, and one or more emergency responders, wherein the one or more emergency responders comprises at least one of one or more police officers (Abstract , paragraphs [0041]-[0043]; Cold transfers can be avoided by Inviting participants to join a single emergency conference rather than passing an original call from party to party, e.g., from PSAP to police to ambulance, etc.).
At the time of the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to modify ZEIGLER’s teaching with a feature of establish a shared communication among the caller, a public safety answering point (“PSAP”) dispatcher, and one or more emergency responders, wherein the one or more emergency responders comprises at least one of one or more police officers as taught by Croy in order to join a single emergency conference rather than passing an emergency call from party to party (Abstract, Croy).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKELAW A TESHALE whose telephone number is (571)270-5302. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am -6pm.
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, AHMAD MATAR can be reached at (571)272-7488. 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.
AKELAW TESHALE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2694
/AKELAW TESHALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights