DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/16/26 has been received and entered in the case. In view of the amendments made by applicant to each of independent claims 1, 11 and 19, a new rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is now set forth, as is a new rejection under 35 USC 103 based on Valla (USPAP 2017/0346820) in view of Matos (USP 7,840,277).
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1, 6, 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 16 of claim 1, the word --formatted-- should be inserted before “sensor data”, note what is indicated on line 12 of this claim.
On line 2 of claim 6, the word “further” should be deleted, the reason being that the step of verifying the plurality of emergency data submissions in claim 5 has not been recited as comprising anything, and therefore it is improper in claim 6 to recite that this step “further” comprises anything.
On line 17 of claim 11, the word --formatted-- should be inserted before “sensor data”, note what is indicated on line 13 of this claim.
On line 17 of claim 19, the word --formatted-- should be inserted before “sensor data”, note what is indicated on line 13 of this claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
On lines 10-11 of claim 1, the newly added limitation of “determining, based on the emergency location of at least one of the plurality of emergency data submissions, that the sensor data corresponds to the at least one emergency data submission” is not supported anywhere in the originally filed specification, drawings or claims, and it therefore constitutes prohibited new matter which should be deleted in response to this office action. Note also that this same prohibited new matter limitation is also included in independent claims 11 and 19, and therefore it should be deleted from these claims as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valla (USPAP 2017/0346820) in view of Matos (USP 7,840,277).
As to claim 1, Valla discloses
a computer-implemented method for sharing emergency data communications (note that the system disclosed by Valla is performed by a computer and it is used for sharing emergency data communications sent from an emergency service provider to a plurality of individuals in possession of a plurality of respective communication devices, e.g., desktop or laptop computers, mobile devices, etc), comprising:
providing an emergency data submission link (see paragraph [0308] of Valla which indicates that the messages sent from the emergency service provider to the communication devices can include a hyperlink that links to a full message from the emergency service provider) regarding an emergency notification to a plurality of communication devices (the plurality of communication devices are the above-noted desktop or laptop computers, mobile devices, etc);
receiving, via the emergency data submission link, a plurality of emergency data submissions related to the emergency notification from the plurality of communication devices, wherein each of emergency data submission comprises an emergency location (again note paragraph [0308] of Valla which indicates that the individuals who receive the message from the emergency service provider can respond to the message from the emergency service organization by giving information regarding the individuals’ safety status and his/her location);
receiving, via one or more sensor feeds, sensor data (note what is indicated in paragraphs [0272], [0307] and [0513] of Valla, i.e., the disclosure in this reference of using one or more sensors to send sensor data to the emergency service provider, wherein such sensor data is sent via one or more sensor feeds, note that such sensor data is related to one or more emergency data submissions from the individual(s) experiencing the emergency situation(s)); and
responsive to selection of the corresponding emergency data submission, displaying the sensor data within a graphical user interface (GUI) of an emergency response application accessed by an emergency service provider (this limitation reads on the emergency service provider in the Valla receiving the different emergency data submissions from the individual or individuals who may be experiencing an emergency situation and the emergency service provider selecting one of the emergency data submissions after the emergency service provider has opened an emergency response application on his/her computer or mobile device, and note that the sensor data is displayed on a graphical user interface, see paragraph [0306] of Valla).
Not disclosed by Valla are the limitations recited on lines 10-14 of claim 1, i.e.,“determining, based on the emergency location of at least one of the plurality of emergency data submissions, that the sensor data corresponds to the at least one emergency data submission”, and “formatting the sensor data for display alongside the corresponding emergency data submission within a graphical user interface (GUI) of an emergency response application accessed by an emergency service provider (ESP)”.
As to the limitation recited on lines 10-11 of claim 1, i.e., determining, based on the emergency location of at least one of the plurality of emergency data submissions, that the sensor data corresponds to the at least one emergency data submission, as noted above this limitation is not supported by the originally filed specification, drawings or claims and therefore cannot be relied upon to distinguish over Valla. Note, however, that this limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that Valla discloses that the individual in the emergency situation submits an emergency data submission and also that sensor data corresponding to that individual is submitted from the individual in the emergency situation, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the computer-implemented method disclosed by Valla should obviously determine that the emergency data submission and also the sensor data correspond to each other, i.e., for the obvious purpose of ensuring that the individual providing the emergency data submission is the same individual whose sensor data is being monitored.
As to the limitation recited on lines 12-14 of claim 1, i.e., formatting the sensor data for display alongside the corresponding emergency data submission within a graphical user interface (GUI) of an emergency response application accessed by an emergency service provider (ESP), this limitation also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to format sensor data for display within a graphical user interface, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Matos, note the disclosure in this reference of a medical professional being able to view sensor data, provided by one or more sensor feeds, in a plurality of different formats depending on his/her particular needs or desires, see column 30, line 33 through column 31, line 9 of Matos, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the formatted sensor data could obviously be displayed either above, below or to the side of the emergency data submission received from the individual experiencing the emergency situation, and thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to format the sensor data for display alongside the corresponding emergency data submission within Valla’s graphical user interface of the emergency response application accessed by the emergency service provider. The motivation for using such a teaching in Valla is to provide the benefit to the emergency service provider personnel of being able to view the sensor data in any one of a plurality of different formats, an obvious advantage over only being able to view the sensor data in a single format.
As to claim 2, note that in Valla the emergency service provider will determine, based on the emergency data submissions provided by the individuals experiencing an emergency situation, an affected area for the emergency notification, and the affected area will be displayed within the graphical user interface of the above-noted emergency response application accessed by the emergency service provider.
As to claim 3, note that in Valla the emergency data submission link will include obtaining an alert corresponding to the emergency from one or more sources, and note further that the claimed device identifiers are disclosed at paragraph [0183] of Valla, i.e., the unique identifiers which respectively correspond to each of the plurality of communication devices, and note that the communication devices will be located within an estimated geographic area associated with the emergency, and note further that the emergency data submission link will be provided to the plurality of communication devices using the device identifiers.
As to claim 4, the above-noted one or more sources will be one or more of a wireless communication device, a telephone landline, a public service answering point, etc.
As to claim 5, note the discussion throughout the Valla regarding verification of the submissions from the above-noted individuals experiencing the emergency situation, i.e., paragraphs [0010], [0016], [0017], [0037], [0046], [0095], [0134], [0141], [0148], [0158] and [0218].
As to claim 6, the above-noted step of verifying the plurality of emergency data submissions received from respective communication devices of the individuals experiencing the emergency situation will comprise receiving a confirmation of an emergency data submission.
As to claim 7, as noted above, in Valla the message with the link is sent to the communication devices via the email addresses of the individuals in possession of the respective communication devices.
As to claim 8, as noted above, in Valla the above-noted individuals in possession of the respective communication devices can respond to the messages received from the emergency service provider in order to share his/her location.
As to claim 9, as noted in the previous office action, although Valla does not disclose that the above-noted device identifier is obtained from a PSAP of the emergency service provider, a telephone service provider, a telephone device manufacturer and/or a public safety agency, this limitation also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the reason being that it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention that a computer or other type of electronic communication device typically includes such an identifier which can obviously be obtained from a PSAP of the emergency service provider, a telephone service provider, a telephone device manufacturer and/or a public safety agency, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
As to claim 10, as noted above, in Valla the above-noted submission link included in the email is a hyperlink.
As to claims 11-20, the limitations of these claims are rejected using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-8 and 10 (note paragraph [0170] and also claim 9 of Valla where this reference discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium which will have instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a computing device, will cause the computing device to perform the above-noted steps of providing the emergency data link via email, as well as the receiving, verifying, displaying and determining steps recited in these claims, and note further that the claimed memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory will also be included in the system of Valla).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed on 09/16/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that support for the above-noted limitation set forth on lines 10-11 of claim 1, i.e., determining, based on the emergency location of at least one of the plurality of emergency data submissions, that the sensor data corresponds to the at least one emergency data submission, “may be found” in paragraphs [0098] through [0099] and figures 9 and 10 of the published specification. This argument is not persuasive because there is no disclosure or description in these two paragraphs or the corresponding figures for determining, based on the emergency location of at least one of the plurality of emergency data submissions, that the sensor data corresponds to the at least one emergency data submission.
Applicant also argues that “[t]he cited portions of Valla do not disclose correlating sensor data to an individual emergency data submission received from a user”. This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not recite correlating sensor data to an individual emergency data submission received from a user, i.e., applicant is arguing limitations from the specification that are not in the claims.
Applicant also argues that “[t]he cited portions of Valla neither disclose nor suggest presenting sensor data together with a corresponding, individual emergency data submission. Rather, Valla uses sensor information in broader emergency-management processes, such as determining user status, identifying emergency areas, or prioritizing responder resources.” This argument is not persuasive because, as noted in the rejection above, because the emergency service provider receives two different inputs from the individual experiencing the emergency situation, i.e., the emergency data submission and the sensor data output from the sensor feeds, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that these two data submissions corresponding to the individual experiencing the emergency situation should both be presented together, for the obvious reason of being to be able to read (or listen to) the individual’s message and also be able to view sensor data which would give the emergency service provider personnel more information about the emergency situation. Moreover, as also noted above, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to format sensor data for display within a graphical user interface, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Matos, note the disclosure at column 30, line 33 through column 31, line 9 of a medical professional being able to view sensor data, provided by one or more sensor feeds, in a plurality of different formats depending on his/her particular needs or desires, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the formatted sensor data in Valla could obviously be displayed either above, below or to the side of the emergency data submission received from the individual experiencing the emergency situation, i.e., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to format the sensor data for display alongside the corresponding emergency data submission within Valla’s graphical user interface of the emergency response application accessed by the emergency service provider, and as also noted above, the motivation for using such a teaching in Valla is to provide the benefit to the emergency service provider personnel of being able to view the sensor data in any one of a plurality of different formats, an obvious advantage over only being able to view the sensor data in a single format.
Applicant also argues that “Valla fails to disclose displaying sensor data when a corresponding emergency data submission is selected by a user…none of the cited portions of Valla disclose or suggest a GUI in which an ESP selects an individual emergency data submission and, in response to that selection, views sensor data that has been determined to correspond to that particular emergency data submission.”. This argument is not persuasive for the same reason noted above, because the emergency service provider receives two different inputs from the individual experiencing the emergency situation, i.e., the emergency data submission and the sensor data output from the sensor feeds, one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that these two data submissions corresponding to the individual experiencing the emergency situation should both be presented together, the obvious reason being to be able to read (or listen to) the individual’s message and also be able to view sensor data which would give the emergency service provider personnel more information about the emergency situation. Moreover, as also noted above, it was old and well-known in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s invention to format sensor data for display within a graphical user interface, one example of this well-known concept being disclosed by Matos, note the disclosure at column 30, line 33 through column 31, line 9 of a medical professional being able to view sensor data, provided by one or more sensor feeds, in a plurality of different formats depending on his/her particular needs or desires, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have easily recognized that the formatted sensor data could obviously be displayed either above, below or to the side of the emergency data submission received from the individual experiencing the emergency situation, i.e., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to format the sensor data for display alongside the corresponding emergency data submission within Valla’s graphical user interface of the emergency response application accessed by the emergency service provider, and as also noted above, the motivation for using such a teaching in Valla is to provide the benefit to the emergency service provider personnel of being able to view the sensor data in any one of a plurality of different formats, and obvious advantage over only being able to view the sensor data in a single format.
Applicant also argues that “the Examiner’s mapping of the emergency data submission link to the hyperlink described in Valla [at paragraph [0308] is misplaced…Valla’s hyperlink delivers a message from the emergency service organization to individuals; it does not provide a mechanism through which those individuals submit emergency data back to the platform.” This argument is not persuasive because it is incorrect, i.e., the individual experiencing the emergency situation in Valla can clearly submit information back to the emergency service provider via the link as indicated in paragraph [0308] of Valla, note the indication in this paragraph that the user receives the message and then the user access point system can request user input regarding the status of the user, including his/her location, safety condition, condition of others, and/or other useful information, and the main server system in Valla can analyze the inputted information received from the individual experiencing the emergency situation in order to determine the level of the user’s safety, e.g., if the user input indicates that the user has a broken leg and his/her house is on fire, the system can deem the user’s safety to be very unsafe, etc.
Applicant’s final argument is a traversal of the examiner’s taking of official notice that a device identifier can be obtained from a PSAP of the emergency service organization, a telephone service provider, a telephone device manufacturer and/or a public safety agency, and applicant requests that the examiner provide documentary evidence to support this assertion, as required under MPEP 2144.03(C). In response to this traversal, the examiner refers applicant to paragraph [0023] of Sulaiman et al, the abstract and paragraph [0109] of Gray, and paragraph [0061] of Pipes, note the attached PTO-892 form which cites these three evidentiary references.
Action is Final
6. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. 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, REGIS J BETSCH, can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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.
/KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836 September 27, 2026
