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 .
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 double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,712 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17, of U.S. Patent No. 15,580,845. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 17, of U.S. Patent No. 11,580,845 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, of U.S. Patent No. 11,605,287. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 13, of U.S. Patent No. 11,605,287 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, 19, of U.S. Patent No. 10,657,799. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 10, 19, of U.S. Patent No. 10,657,799 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11, 21, of U.S. Patent No. 10,140,842. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 11, 21, of U.S. Patent No. 10,140,842 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 22, of U.S. Patent No. 9,756,169. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 13, 22, of U.S. Patent No. 9,756,169 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17, 24, of U.S. Patent No. 9,659,484. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are arguably broader than claims 1, 17, 24, of U.S. Patent No. 9, 659,484 which encompasses the same metes, bounds and limitations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to eliminate the limitations of the narrower claims, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function and a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. See in re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanover (US 2014/0031000) in view of Bachelder et al. (US 2005/0104745).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 8, 13, Hanover discloses a method for providing situational awareness during an emergency (page 3, [0019]), comprising: receiving, by an emergency management system (EMS), an alert (audio) from an electronic device associated with a user, wherein the alert comprises a request for emergency assistance and an emergency location (page 5, [0052-0054]); identifying, by the EMS, located within a predefined vicinity of the emergency location (page 5, [0053-0054]) or within a predefined service area of an emergency dispatch center (EDC) (page 5, [0053]); requesting, by the EMS, and providing, by the EMS, the alert to the EDC (page 5, [0052-0054]).
Hanover discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose one or more sensors; determining whether the one or more identified sensors have relevant information about the emergency; sensor data from at least one of the one or more identified sensors and the sensor data.
However, Bachelder discloses one or more sensors (page 4, [0053); determining whether the one or more identified sensors have relevant information about the emergency (page 4, [0053]; sensor data from at least one of the one or more identified sensors and the sensor data (page 4, [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the features of Bachelder within the system of Hanover in order to provide real-time monitoring to allow safe passage of emergency vehicles thereby maximizing the safety of the system.
Regarding claims 2, 9, Hanover discloses wherein the alert is a sensor-based alert triggered by a sensor
on the electronic device (page 3, [0019]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, Hanover discloses wherein the one or more sensors are Internet of Things
devices in communication with an Internet of Things network (page 1, [0003]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, Hanover discloses identifying, by the EMS, one or more additional sensors associated with a location of the electronic device when the location of the electronic device changes (page 5, [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Hanover discloses wherein the EMS shares the alert and the sensor data with
emergency response personnel assigned to the request for emergency assistance and the electronic
device is a wearable device (page 5, [0052-0053]).
Regarding claim 6, Hanover discloses wherein the EMS receives a responsive communication from
the EDC and forwards the responsive communication to the electronic device (page 5, [0052-0054]).
Regarding claim 12, Hanover discloses wherein the one or more processors of the EMS execute the program code to receive a responsive communication from the EDC and forward the responsive communication to the electronic device (page 5, [0052-0054]).
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanover (US 2014/0031000) in view of Bishop et al. (US 5,563,931).
Regarding claim 14, Hanover discloses a method of facilitating communications between a trigger device and an emergency dispatch center during an emergency (page 5, [0053]) comprising: via a trigger device, initiating an emergency alert, wherein the trigger device is a wearable device or a sensor and the emergency alert comprises a location of the trigger device and additional data associated with the emergency (page 5, [0052-0054]); responsive to a successful connection attempt between the trigger device and the first communication device, transmitting the emergency alert to the first communication device and establishing a data communication link via the first communication device for transmitting the emergency alert to an emergency dispatch center (EDC) (page 5, [0052-0054]).
Hanover discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose accessing a list of communication devices that are networked with the trigger device; selecting a first communication device from the list of communication devices; initiating a connection attempt between the trigger device and the first communication device.
However, Bishop discloses accessing a list of communication devices that are networked with the trigger device (fig. 1; fig. 10); selecting a first communication device from the list of communication devices (fig. 10; col. 15, lines 53-67; col. 16, lines 1-44); initiating a connection attempt between the trigger device and the first communication device (fig. 1; fig. 10; col. 15, lines 53-67; col. 16, lines 1-56).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was first filed to incorporate the features of Bishop within the system of Hanover in order to provide real-time monitoring to allow safe passage of emergency vehicles thereby maximizing the safety of the system.
Regarding claim 15, Hanover discloses wherein the list of communication devices is a prioritized
list for sending the emergency alert, wherein the first communication device is selected from the
prioritized list based on priority level (page 5, [0052-0054]).
Regarding claim 16, Hanover discloses wherein the priority level is determined based on one or
more of signal quality, proximity, or recently connected devices (page 5, [0052-0054]).
Regarding claim 17, Hanover discloses wherein responsive to failure of the connection attempt
between the trigger device and the first communication device, initiating a subsequent connection
attempt between the trigger device and a second communication device from the list of
communication devices (page 5, [0052-0054]).
Regarding claim 18, Hanover discloses wherein the trigger device receives a status update from the
first communication device (page 5, [0052-0054]).
Regarding claim 19, Hanover discloses wherein initiating an emergency alert via the trigger device
occurs responsive to a sensed signal (page 5, [0052-0054]).
Regarding claim 20, Hanover discloses receiving a signal associated with the trigger device and the emergency alert at a computing device of the EDC (page 5, [0052-0054]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Binder et al. (US 2013/0201316) discloses system and method for server based control.
Boone (US 2001/0051849) discloses emergency response information system.
Estrada et al. (US 2012/0320912) discloses systems……..management.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 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, Wang Quan-Zhen can be reached at 571 272 3114. 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.
DP
February 26, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685