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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the 1st sentence uses the phrase “Particular example embodiments described herein”, which can be implied and which uses the legal word “herein”.
The following change is suggested: Provided is a system, an apparatus, and a method for creating a geofence around an event, ….(rest same).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 - 2, 4 - 10, 12 - 15, 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekl et al. (US 20220191671 A1) in view of Shaffer et al. (US 20120039451 A1) (which has been provided in the IDS 5/8/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Ekl discloses a method, comprising:
creating a geofence around an event (Fig. 2, block 240; [0016] discloses events; [0058] discloses “Each tenant has an associated geographic region and may be responsible for responding to emergency calls within that geographic region. The boundaries of the geographic region are represented as a geofence or a set of geofences (referred to generally as “geofence” or “geofence data”). Geofence data may be stored in the tenant mapping module 240,….“);
receiving a communication at a public safety answering point (PSAP) (Fig. 1, PSAP 140 receives call from mobile device 110 via element 120; [0035]);
and general location data, included in the communication received at the PSAP ([0015] discloses “…call data, such as the locations of emergency callers, …”; [0036] discloses “The CHE 142 associates call data, such as caller location information, call routing actions, Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) events, and other telemetry data, with the call event.”).
Ekl further discloses ([0058]): “A tenant may also be a group of PSAPs that are assigned to the same jurisdiction and respond to calls within the jurisdiction ….Each tenant has an associated geographic region and may be responsible for responding to emergency calls within that geographic region. The boundaries of the geographic region are represented as a geofence….”.
Hence, it would be essential to know if the communication originated from within the geofence or outside it since if outside the geofence a different PSAP would have to handle the communication.
Ekl does not disclose:
creating a phase one gate around the geofence;
conditioned upon communication originated inside the phase one gate, delaying the communication until precise location data for the communication determines if the communication originated inside the geofence or outside of the geofence.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Shaffer discloses:
creating a phase one gate around the geofence (Abstract discloses “a predefined high priority geographical area”; wherein the phase one gate is interpreted as the predefined high priority geographical area);
determining if the call originated from the phase one gate and if more information is needed ([0033] discloses “The location from which the telephone call originates is determined, at block 606, and the telephone call is queued, at block 608. If the call relates to any event about which more information is required, a high priority geographical area associated with the location of that call is defined, at block 610.’’).
Hence from the above, one knows if the call originated from the phase one gate and if more information is needed.
Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art can combine the methods of Ekl and Shaffer to delay the communication if it originated in the phase one gate region. During the delay phase, it can be determined if the communication was from inside or outside the geofence. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E), this is obvious to try and would provide more precise information about the location of the caller.
Hence the limitation: “conditioned upon communication originated inside the phase one gate, delaying the communication until precise location data for the communication determines if the communication originated inside the geofence or outside of the geofence” would be met by combining the two references as above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the methods of Ekl and Shaffer, as above because this would allow for more precise caller information be obtained so that the appropriate PSAP can handle the communication and the nearest emergency services could be utilized.
Regarding claim 2, Ekl discloses the general location data included in the communication received at the PSAP that indicates the communication originated inside the phase one gate is cell tower information (Fig. 1, cell tower 120; [0032]; [ 0033] discloses “In this example, the mobile device 110 connects to a cellular network via the cell tower 120.”; Fig. 1, PSAP 140 receives call from mobile device 110 via element 120).
Regarding claim 4, Ekl discloses one or more rules for routing communications that originated inside the geofence are associated with the geofence (inherent in [0058]: “A tenant may also be a group of PSAPs that are assigned to the same jurisdiction and respond to calls within the jurisdiction ….Each tenant has an associated geographic region and may be responsible for responding to emergency calls within that geographic region. The boundaries of the geographic region are represented as a geofence….”; wherein the communication will be routed to the PSAP associated with the geofence).
Regarding claim 5, Ekl discloses the PSAP operator can change boundaries of the geofence ([0069], last sentence discloses “FIGS. 4 and 5, discussed below, show example interfaces in which a user selects the geographic area.”; [0080] discloses “FIG. 5 is a user interface showing a user selection of a geographic region on the map, …. A user has drawn the message polygon 510 around the unanswered signal indicators 425 and in the area around the answered call 420. In this example, the message polygon 510 is a circle, but other shapes, e.g., a rectangle, a square, a hexagon, etc., may be used…”; wherein boundaries can be changed by selecting different areas).
Regarding claim 6, Ekl discloses the boundaries of the geofence being changed (as in claim 5 above).
Changing the boundaries of the phase one gate in response to the boundaries of the geofence being changed is obvious to try and an obvious variation of what Ekl discloses (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F)). As the geofence boundary changes, the old phase one gate may no longer be on the new geofence boundary and it naturally follows that it should also be changed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to also change the phase one gate as the old phase one gate may no longer be on the boundary of the new geofence and would therefore no longer be relevant.
Regarding claim 7, Ekl does not explicitly disclose a PSAP operator can activate and deactivate the geofence.
However, this is obvious to try and an obvious variation of what Ekl discloses (claim 5). (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F)). Changing the boundary could also mean not selecting a boundary (deactivation) and then later selecting one (activation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to activate/deactivate the geofence as needed, as this would ensure that the PSAP/emergency personnel are ready when e.g. an event occurs and are released for other duties when not required (e.g. no event).
Claim 8 is similarly analyzed as claim 1, with claim 8 reciting apparatus limitations. Claim 8 also recites that the geofence is created after communications are analyzed. This is disclosed by Ekl ([0016] discloses “… a single event can prompt a large number of people to place emergency calls. For example, a car crash on a busy road, a fire in a densely populated building or area, or a mass casualty event can cause a lot of observers to dial 9-1-1 at around the same time.”.). Hence, when the calls are analyzed, a geofence can be created around the area of the event.
Regarding claim 9, Ekl discloses a type of the event triggered the creation of the geofence ([0016], as in claim 7, discloses types of events. Fig. 5, [0080] disclose geofence boundary can be created).
Regarding claim 10, Ekl discloses a volume of calls related to the event triggered the creation of the geofence ([0016], 1st two sentences).
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claim 14 is similarly analyzed as claim 6.
Claim 15 is similarly analyzed as claims 1 and 8.
Claim 17 is similarly analyzed as claim 9.
Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as claim 10. Claim 10 recited volume of calls, which inherently would use a threshold.
Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 4.
Claim 20 is similarly analyzed as claim 5.
Claims 3, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ekl et al. (US 20220191671 A1) in view of Shaffer et al. (US 20120039451 A1) (which has been provided in the IDS 5/8/2026) in view of Kerr et al. (US 20240129689 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Ekl does not disclose the geofence was created by a computer model.
In the same field of endeavor, however, Kerr discloses the geofence was created by a computer model (Fig. 9 discloses “create display geofence association 906” and geofences in drop down menu; [0093] discloses “…a geofence is selected from drop down menu 904 …”; wherein the administrator selects a geofence that was created using and stored).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as disclosed by Kerr, in the system of Ekl because this would allow appropriate geofences to be created based on events and regions.
Regarding claim 11, Ekl discloses a geofence should be implemented around an event ([0016] discloses types of events. Fig. 5, [0080] disclose geofence boundary can be created). A computer model was used is analyzed as in claim 3.
Claim 16 is similarly analyzed as claim 3. Claim 16 additionally recites that the phase one gate is created using a computer model. This follows naturally from the geofence being created using a computer model since as the geofence changes, the phase one gate will also change and using the computer model also for the phase one gate is obvious to try or an obvious variation, Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to also use a computer model for the phase one gate as the phase one gate would be on the boundary of the geofence and when the geofence is created by the computer model, the phase one gate can also be created.
Other Prior Art Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to geofencing around an event:
Gideon (US 11259165 B2) discloses Systems, Devices, And Methods for Emergency Responses and Safety.
Chouhan et al. (US 9712987 B2) discloses Provisioning Emergency Services Information Using Mappings and Emergency Services Types.
South (US 9572002 B2) discloses Interactive Emergency Information and Identification Systems and Methods.
Burt (US 20150312739 A1) discloses emergency services
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights