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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on March 13, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20, 23, 25-38 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Kerzner in view of Tamura does not teach the features of the amended independent claims: “the plurality of predetermined stopping points corresponding to egress or safety locations of the facility, and based on stored associations between respective ones of the plurality of predetermined stopping points and respective security event types”, “audible instructions, via a speaker of the autonomous mobile machine, the one or more context-specific audible instructions including directing one or more nearby personnel to at least one of the plurality of predetermined stopping points in the facility that are determined, based on the detected location of the security event on the map”.
In this office action Kumar is cited to reject the limitations.
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.
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(s) 1-20, 23, 25-29, 31, 34 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerzner (US 20160266577 A1), which was cited by Applicant, in view of Kumar et al. (US 10777051 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kerzner discloses:
A security system, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and one or more processors coupled with the memory and configured to execute the instructions to: receive, from a security device of the security system, a security signal {paragraph [0126] discloses receiving data indicative of a security event};
detect a security event occurred in a facility and a location of the security event based on the security signal, in response to the security signal being received {[0126] discloses security event detecting information including window breaking and moving objects, and a location of the sensor};
determine a path to the security location for the autonomous mobile machine, and transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, first instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to move to the security location along the determined path to perform the security task {[0006] discloses transmitting a command to a respective robotic device instructing the device to navigate to the security location},
wherein the first instructions are configured to cause the autonomous mobile machine to deploy to the security location and perform the security task {[0006], [0052] discloses determining security task and instructing the robotic device to perform the task, such as shining bright light},
wherein the security task comprises the autonomous mobile machine providing one or more audible instructions, via a speaker of the autonomous mobile machine, the one or more audible instructions including directing nearby personnel{[0079] discloses a speaker of the autonomous mobile machine to communicate information to a nearby user}.
Kerzner does not disclose:
[1] determine, based on a map of the facility including a plurality of predetermined stopping points, the plurality of predetermined stopping points corresponding to egress or safety locations of the facility, and based on stored associations between respective ones of the plurality of predetermined stopping points and respective security event types, a security location corresponding to one of the plurality of predetermined stopping points in the facility for an autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task, in response to the security event being detected.
[2] audible instructions including directing one or more nearby personnel to at least one of the plurality of predetermined stopping points in the facility that are determined, based on the detected location of the security event on the map, to be unimpacted by the security event.
[1] Kumar teaches determining stopping points to egress of the facility based on a map; corresponding to egress of the facility; stored associations; a security location corresponding to one of the plurality of predetermined stopping points in the facility in col. 15, lines 1-17: The emergency response computing platform 110 may then determine an evacuation route 730 that takes into account the safe areas and dangerous areas… determine the evacuation route based on a map… indicate the location of obstacles, exits, and other aspects of the premises. The map and/or the information stored in premises security/automation database 114 may further indicate where safety equipment is located (e.g., a fire sprinkler 740 and/or a fire extinguisher 760), and the emergency response computing platform 110 may use such indications to determine which areas are safe or not.
Kumar further teaches for an autonomous mobile machine to perform a security task, in response to the security event being detected in col 16, lines 44-59: the emergency response computing platform may plan… an evacuation route for safely evacuating the premises… transmit an instruction that causes the autonomous drones to indicate, to one or more persons in a vicinity of the emergency condition, the evacuation route.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of security system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the stopping points feature of Kumar with the described invention of Kerzner in order to prioritize certain locations in the facility for security ensuring purpose.
[2] Kumar teaches the audible instructions in col. 15, lines 18-32: drones may assist with the evacuation by playing a message (e.g., via a speaker onboard the drone) that instructs anyone in the vicinity to evacuate. The message may further provide instructions for evacuating (e.g., indicate which door to exit by, which way to head, where a safe zone is.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of security system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the audible instructions feature of Kumar with the described invention of Kerzner in order to designate specified positions in a facility for taking refuge.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 8, 15.
Regarding claim 2, which depends from claim 1, Kerzner discloses: wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: determine the security task corresponding to the security event, in response to the security event being detected; and transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, second instructions for the autonomous mobile machine to perform the security task at the security location {[0052]}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 9, 16.
Regarding claim 3, which depends from claim 1, Kerzner discloses: wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: select the autonomous mobile machine from a plurality of autonomous mobile machines based on the security event {[0010] – [0012] disclose selecting a robotic device depending on the security event, for example, proximity to the security location}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 10, 17.
Regarding claim 4, which depends from claim 3, Kerzner discloses: wherein the autonomous mobile machine is further selected based on one or more capabilities of the autonomous mobile machine or a current location of the autonomous mobile machine {0010] – [0012] disclose selecting a robotic device depending on its capability, for example, camera, projector, audio output device, light or a taser}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 11, 18.
Regarding claim 5, which depends from claim 3, Kerzner discloses: wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: transmit, to the autonomous mobile machine, an availability request signal requesting availability of the autonomous mobile machine, wherein the first instructions are transmitted to the autonomous mobile machine based on an availability confirmation signal being received from the autonomous mobile machine in response to the availability request signal {[0146] discloses requesting location to the robotic device, that is, transmitting an availability request signal requesting availability of the autonomous mobile machine, and reporting location by the robotic device. [0012] discloses selecting a robotic device currently nearest in proximity to the security location. That is, instructions are transmitted based on an a availability confirmation signal}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 12, 19.
Regarding claim 6, which depends from claim 1, Kerzner discloses: wherein the security task includes one or more of displaying a message on a display of the autonomous mobile machine, enabling or disabling a light of the autonomous mobile machine, or generating a sound from an output device on the autonomous mobile machine {[0011] discloses robotic devices equipped with an audio output device and a bright light. [0079] discloses a display}.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 13, 20.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1, Kerzner discloses: wherein the one or more processors is further configured to: receive, from the autonomous mobile machine, a confirmation signal indicating the autonomous mobile machine has arrived at the security location or is performing the security task at the security location {[0113] and [0179] disclose that the robotic device reports its performance of the security task at the security location, such as playing audio, firing taser, scan, etc.}.
Similar reasoning applies to claim 14.
Regarding claim 23, which depends from claim 1, Kumar teaches: wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive, via a network connection, the path to one or more of the plurality of predetermined stopping points in the facility for use in specifying the audible instructions to direct the nearby personnel to at least one of the plurality of predetermined stopping points in the facility unimpacted by the security event {col. 15, lines 1-17; col 16, lines 44-59; col. 15, lines 18-32; col. 4. lines 46-60 teach the network: Communication interface 117 may include one or more wired and/or wireless network interfaces, and communication interface 117 may connect the emergency response computing platform 110 to one or more networks (e.g., network 170) and/or enable the emergency response computing platform 110 to exchange information and/or otherwise communicate with one or more devices connected to such networks}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of security system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the network feature of Kumar with the described invention of modified Kerzner in order to in order to facilitate designating specified positions in a facility for taking refuge.
Regarding claim 25, which depends from claim 1, Kerzner teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: monitor whether the security event has ended; and transmit a notification to the autonomous mobile machine in response to a determination that the security event has ended, wherein the notification is configured to cause the autonomous mobile machine to output a message that communicates updated information associated with an end of the security event.
Kerzner discloses monitoring security event in [0090], and event notification in [0042].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of security system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the event notification feature of Kerzner when an end of security event is monitored in order to inform that actions for the security event is no longer necessary.
Regarding claim 26, which depends from claim 25, Kerzner discloses: wherein the notification is further configured to cause the autonomous mobile machine to output the message on a display of the autonomous mobile machine {[0079]}.
Regarding claim 27, which depends from claim 1, Kumar teaches: wherein the one or more processors are configured to receive, via a network connection, path information to one or more of the plurality of predetermined stopping points for use in specifying the audible instructions {col. 15, lines 1-17; col 16, lines 44-59; col. 15, lines 18-32; col. 4. lines 46-60}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of security system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the network for receiving path information feature of Kumar with the described invention of modified Kerzner in order to in order to facilitate guiding safety route in a facility.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 28, 29.
Regarding claim 31, which depends from claim 1, Kumar teaches: wherein the one or more processors determine the security location based on stored associations between respective ones of the plurality of predetermined stopping points and respective security event types {col. 15, lines 1-17}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of security system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the stored association feature of Kumar with the described invention of modified Kerzner in order to facilitate utilizing existing data.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 34, 37.
Claim(s) 30, 32, 33, 35, 36 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerzner in view of Kumar and in further view of Derickson et al. (US 20220108622 A1).
Regarding claim 30, which depends from claim 1, modified Kerzner does not teach: wherein the plurality of predetermined stopping points correspond to entrance/exit doors of the facility and include at least one stopping point near elevators.
Derickson teaches stopping points near elevators in [0007]: High-rise buildings have egress strategies through stairways and occupant evacuation elevators.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of security system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the near elevator stopping feature of Derickson with the described invention of modified Kerzner in order to guide an evacuation route.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 33, 36.
Regarding claim 32, which depends from claim 1, Derickson teaches: wherein, in response to the security signal indicating a fire condition, the autonomous mobile machine instructs the one or more nearby personnel to avoid one or more elevators and to proceed to an entrance/exit stopping point unimpacted by the fire condition {[0014]: to select egress pathways and strategies that will provide for safe egress during the entirety of the egress period. For instance, assume an occupant is in their office and a fire starts in an elevator hallway of a high-rise building. At the time the fire is detected, egress through a stairwell is available}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of security system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the alternate route feature of Derickson with the described invention of modified Kerzner in order to guide a safe evacuation route.
Similar reasoning applies to claims 35, 38.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANMIN PARK whose telephone number is (408)918-7555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RUSSELL FREJD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights