DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/25 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on the last line of paragraph [0001], "its entirety" should be changed to --their entireties-- for purposes of proper grammatical form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On the second line of claim 3, the word “further” should be deleted, the reason being that the step of providing an emergency data submission link in claim 1 has not been recited as comprising anything, and therefore it is improper in claim 3 to recite that this step “further” comprises anything.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Valla, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0346820.
As to claim 1, Valla discloses
a computer implemented method for sharing emergency data communications (note that the system disclosed by Vallla inherently is performed by a computer and it is used for sharing emergency data communications sent from an emergency service organization 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 organization to the communication devices can include a hyperlink that links to a full message from the emergency service organization) 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 emergency data submission comprises an emergency location (again note paragraph [0308] of Vallla which indicates that the individuals who receive the message from the emergency service organization 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 related to at least one of the plurality of emergency data submissions (note what is indicated in paragraphs [0272], [0307] and [0513] of Valla, i.e., the disclosure by Valla 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, and such sensor data is inherently related to one or more emergency data submissions); and
displaying the submitted emergency incidents within a graphical user interface GUI (note the discussion throughout Valla of displaying the submitted emergency incidents submitted from the above-noted individuals, i.e., paragraphs [0024], [0042] through [0044], [0047], [0062] and [0065] through [0074], and note further that the above-noted sensor data will be displayed on the graphical user interface of the emergency service provider, along with the emergency data submissions received from the individuals experiencing the emergency, where such a graphical user interface is inherently included as part of an emergency response application which is accessed by the emergency service provider).
As to claim 2, in Valla the emergency service organization will inherently determine, based on the submitted emergency incidents from the above-noted individuals, an affected area for the emergency notification, as will the step of displaying the affected area within the graphical user interface of the above-noted emergency response application accessed by the emergency service provider.
As to claim 3, in Valla the claimed step of providing the emergency data submission link will inherently include obtaining an alert corresponding to the emergency from one or more sources, and the claimed identifying device identifiers are disclosed at paragraph [0183] of Valla, i.e., the disclosed unique identifiers which respectively correspond to each of the plurality of communication devices, the communication devices inherently being located within an estimated geographic area associated with the emergency (and inherently 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 inherently be a wireless communications device, a telephone landline, a public service answering point, etc.
As to claim 5, note the discussion throughout Valla regarding verification of the submissions from the above-noted individuals, i.e., paragraphs [0010], [0016] through [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 the respective communication devices will inherently 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.
As to claim 8, as noted above, in Valla the above-noted individuals can respond to the messages received from the emergency service organization in order to share his/her location.
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 with regard to 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 inherently 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 datalink via email, as well as the receiving, verifying, displaying and determining steps set forth in these two claims, and note further that the claimed memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory will be inherent in the system of Valla).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valla, supra.
Although Valla does not disclose that the above-noted device identifier is obtained from a PSAP of the emergency service organization, a telephone service provider, a telephone device manufacture 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 inherently includes such an identifier which can be obtained from a PSAP of the emergency service organization, a telephone service provider, a telephone device manufacture and/or a public safety agency, of which fact official notice is taken by the examiner.
Double Patenting
7. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 4-20 of co-pending Application No. 17/664,394 in view of Valla, supra. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection. Applicant should note that all of the limitations of claims 1-20 of the present application are either anticipated by or would have been obvious from what is recited in the claims (as amended, in applicant's response filed on 01/16/25) in parent case 17/664,394.
As to independent claim 1 of the present application, note that the limitations recited on lines 1-7 are anticipated by what is recited on lines 1-7 of independent claim 1 of the '394 application, the limitations recited on lines 8-9 of claim 1 of the present application would have been obvious from the above-noted teaching by Valla in paragraphs [0272], [0307] and [0513], i.e., this reference teaches, as noted above, a computer implemented method for sharing emergency data communications including receiving, via one or more sensor feeds, sensor data related to emergency data submissions, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that claim 1 of the '394 application would benefit from being able to receive emergency data submissions from individuals experiencing an emergency where such emergency data submissions are the output of sensors such as those disclosed by Valla, and the limitations recited on lines 10-12 of claim 1 of the present application, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art who would have easily recognized that the above-noted emergency data submissions and sensor data should obviously be displayed on a graphical user interface of an emergency response application accessed by an emergency service provider, i.e., so that the emergency service provider would be able to quickly and easily see what the emergency is and where it is located.
As to claims 2-20 of the present application, note that all of the limitations of these claims are anticipated by what is recited in claims 2 and 4-20 (as presented in the applicant's response filed on 01/16/25) of the '394 patent. Specifically, the limitations of claim 2 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited in claim 2 of the ‘394 application, the limitations of claim 3 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited in claim 4 of the ‘394 application, the limitations of claim 4 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited in claim of the ‘394 application, the limitations of claim 5 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited on lines 8-9 of claim 1 of the ‘394 application, the limitations of claim 6 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited in claim 6 of the ‘394 application, the limitations of claim 7 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited in claim 7 of the ‘394 application, the limitations of claim 8 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited in claim 8 of the ‘394 application, the limitations of claim 9 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited in claim 9 of the ‘394 application, the limitations of claim 10 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited in claim 10 of the ‘394 application, and the limitations of claims 11-20 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited in claims 11-20 of the ‘394 application.
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Note also the several references cited on the attached PTO-892 form, each of which discloses, similar to Valla’s disclosure at paragraphs [0272], [0307] and [0513] of Valla (i.e., the disclosure by Valla 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, and such sensor data is inherently related to one or more emergency data submissions), receiving, via one or more sensor feeds, sensor data related to an emergency data submission. Specifically, note the abstract and paragraphs [0005], [0021], [0024] and [0030] of Martin et al '295, paragraphs [0007] through [0009] of Halse et al, paragraphs [0009], [0011] and [0013] of Pellegrini et al, paragraphs [0005] through [0007] of Martin et al '289, the abstract and paragraphs [0005], [0008] and [0010] of Katz et al, paragraphs [0007] through [0009] of Mehta et al '056, paragraphs [0005] through [0007] of Mehta et al '827, paragraphs [0008] through [0010] of Mehta et al '347 and the abstract and paragraphs [0003] through [0005] of Mehta et al '853.
Conclusion
9. 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 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 2842 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights