Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-10 are currently presented for Examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2021-0128542, filed on 09/29/2021.
Claim objections
The claims have numerous issues with antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending the claims such that the first recitation of each distinct element uses articles such as “a”/”an”, later recitations referring back to the same distinct element uses articles such as “the”/”said”, to use disambiguating modifiers (e.g., first, second, etc.) when there are multiple distinct elements with the same base term, and that the use of modifiers for each distinct element is kept consistent. Below is a non-exhaustive list of examples of these issues: Claim 1 recites the limitation “the shortest distance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an evacuation unit (claim 1-7, claim 9),
a fire unit (claim 2)
reception part (claim 4)
determination part (claim 4, 5, 9)
selection part (claim 7-9)
calculation part (claim 7-9)
The above units do not have corresponding structure found in Specification.
Each of the above generic placeholder is specifically excluded from being interpreted as software per se. See MPEP §2181(II)(B) third to last paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For the purposes of claim limitations examination, the Examiner will be interpreting the above unit and part as processing unit in view of instant fig 8.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112, First Paragraph
5. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
6. Claim 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims cite the limitations
a. an evacuation unit (claim 1-7, claim 9),
b. a fire unit (claim 2)
c. reception part (claim 4)
d. determination part (claim 4, 5, 9)
e. selection part (claim 7-9)
f. calculation part (claim 7-9)
These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholders without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. The above module does not have corresponding structure found in specification. According to MPEP § 2181(II)(B) "the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general-purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification.” The specification does not specifically link any algorithms to the above units for performing the claimed function. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function. The written description does not include the structural elements to carry out these specifically claimed functions.
Claim 2-9 are dependent claims of claim 1 and do not overcome the deficiencies of claim 1 and thus rejected as well.
7. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while indicating that a "calculation part" performs specific functions, fails to provide an adequate algorithm for the computer-implemented limitations. For computer-implemented functions, the specification must disclose an algorithm (e.g., a flowchart, mathematical formula, or prose) in sufficient detail to demonstrate possession of the invention. The disclosure that "calculation part 175 may calculate the degree of risk" is a purely functional statement. It describes the desired result rather than the steps the computer takes to achieve that result. Simply stating that "data... may be prepared in advance using FDS" (paragraph [0092]) does not teach one of ordinary skill how to convert FDS output into the specific "weighting" used by the selection part. Without a disclosed formula for the "weight function," a person of ordinary skill in the art would be required to engage in undue experimentation to arrive at a functional system that reliably selects a "safest exit" as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claim 1-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AlA the applicant regards as the invention Claims cite the limitations
a. an evacuation unit (claim 1-7, claim 9),
b. a fire unit (claim 2)
c. reception part (claim 4)
d. determination part (claim 4, 5, 9)
e. selection part (claim 7-9)
f. calculation part (claim 7-9)
These limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use the generic placeholders without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function or to modify the generic placeholder. The above module does not have corresponding structure found in Specification. In particular, note that “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” [MPEP 2181 II.B]. The specification does not specifically link any algorithms to all the different units for performing the claimed function. Thus, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function and are indefinite.
Claim 2-9 are dependent claims of claim 1 and do not overcome the deficiencies of claim 1 and thus rejected as well.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; or
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01 (o) and 2181.
9. Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. The term "degree of risk" (and "level of risk") is a term of degree and a relative term that lacks an objective standard in the specification. While the specification in paragraph [0090] lists factors such as toxic gas concentration and temperature, it fails to provide the "reasonable certainty" required to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. Specifically, it is unclear: How these disparate factors are numerically normalized or combined into a single "degree." What specific numerical thresholds constitute a "risk" that triggers a detour selection. The claim also recites calculating a "weight function" but the specification only provides the inputs (distance and risk) without disclosing the actual mathematical relationship or formula. Because the result of the calculation determines the "detour," the lack of a defined function leaves the public unable to determine what route-selection logic would infringe the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. These claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1) Is the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims: 1-9 are directed to apparatus or machine that falls on one of statutory category.
Claim: 10 is directed to method or process that falls on one of statutory category.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites
to simulate evacuation routes for occupants who are in a building when the building is on fire, (The core concept of "simulating evacuation routes" can be performed by a human using a map and a pen for route planning. This is a "mental process" abstract idea. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls under the “Mental Process” of abstract idea.)
wherein under a definition of a limiting factor including at least one selected from a group of flame, smoke, and an obstacle caused by a fire, (this is the mental process of identifying conditions by defining variables.
when the limiting factor is present between a particular occupant among the occupants and an exit at the shortest distance, (This is a logical observation. A human can mentally observe if a fire is between a person and a door (or exit)
generate a detour for the particular occupant to bypass the limiting factor. (This is the mental process of making decisions or selections for alternate route. A person looking at a floor plan can identify smoke (limiting factor) and mentally plot a different route (detour). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls under the “Mental Process” of abstract idea.)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a simulation apparatus, comprising: an evacuation unit which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Simply limiting the abstract idea of pathfinding to the environment of "a building on fire" does not constitute a practical application that transforms the idea into something more than the exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a simulation apparatus, comprising: an evacuation unit which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Simply limiting the abstract idea of pathfinding to the environment of "a building on fire" does not constitute a practical application that transforms the idea into something more than the exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further recites comprising a fire unit configured to simulate the fire occurring in the building,
wherein the fire unit is configured to generate fire information including the limiting factor that spreads over time, and the evacuation unit is configured to generate the detour by using the limiting factor included in the fire information. The core of the claim involves simulating fire spread and using that information to plan (generate a detour). This can be characterized as a series of mental steps or an abstract modeling process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper or a generic computer program. The idea of predicting a fire's spread (the "limiting factor" those spreads over time) and planning an evacuation route based on that prediction is a fundamental planning activity, which is categorized as an unpatentable abstract concept. The claim recites a "fire unit" and an "evacuation unit” which are merely described as generic computer components configured to perform the abstract steps; they do not provide the necessary "inventive concept" to make the claim patent-eligible. as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); The use of a general-purpose computer to implement an abstract idea is not enough to transform it into a patent-eligible invention. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 3 further recites wherein the evacuation unit is configured to determine whether each of the occupants recognizes the limiting factor, and to generate the detour only for a recognizing occupant who recognizes the limiting factor. "Determining whether each of the occupants recognizes the limiting factor". This "determining" step, when performed by a human, is a mental process or judgment. The process of recognizing a limiting factor (e.g., an obstacle, hazard, or restriction) is a cognitive step. A human can observe a situation (e.g., a blocked exit), recognize it as a problem (limiting factor), and decide on an alternative path (generate a detour). The "evacuation unit" merely automates this mental process using generic computer components. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 4 further recites wherein the evacuation unit comprises a reception part and a determination part, the reception part is configured to receive building information, placement information of the occupants, and fire information including the limiting factor, the determination part is configured to use the building information, the placement information, and the fire information to determine at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is visually recognized, as a recognizing occupant, and the evacuation unit is configured to generate the detour only for the recognizing occupant. The described claim involves a process of collecting information (building, placement, and fire data), making a determination (identifying "recognizing occupants" in a "recognition area" where a "limiting factor" is visible), and generating a result (a detour only for those specific occupants). These actions—information gathering, analysis, and decision making—are categorized as mental processes or methods of organizing human activity, which are recognized types of abstract ideas. A human could, in principle, perform the described steps, (e.g., observing a fire, looking at building plans and occupant lists, and mentally or manually determining who can see the fire and needs a different route). The fact that the process can be "practically performed" in the human mind (even with pencil and paper) makes this limitation as an abstract idea. The claim recites a "reception part" and a "determination part." These are described functionally in generic terms. A "reception part configured to receive information" is a generic component (like a standard input device or communication port), and a "determination part configured to use the information to determine" is a generic computer processor performing its basic function of computation. The claim does not specify any particular, non-generic technological improvement to the computer components themselves, nor does it describe a specific, non-conventional physical implementation beyond the abstract process of data input and calculation. Merely using a generic computer to implement an abstract idea does not constitute an "inventive concept". Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 5 further recites wherein the determination part is configured to repeat a process of determination of the recognizing occupant every set period, the determination part is configured to determine, when a particular occupant moving on the shortest route to a particular exit in a previous period enters the recognition area on the shortest route, the particular occupant newly entering the recognition area as the recognizing occupant, and the evacuation unit is configured to provide the particular occupant with the detour instead of the existing shortest route for the particular occupant newly determined as the recognizing occupant. The process of "determining" whether an occupant is a "recognizing occupant" based on their movement and position is often categorized as an abstract idea under the mental process grouping. A person could observe an individual entering an area and "determine" their status, making this part of the claim abstract. A human monitor could observe occupants, "determine" if they are on a specific route, "recognize" them from a previous period, and then "provide" a detour (e.g., via verbal instruction or signage). The use of terms like "determination part" and "evacuation unit" typically represents generic computer functions.
Simply automating a mental process on a computer using generic hardware does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 6 further recites wherein the evacuation unit is configured to generate routes for the remaining occupants excluding the recognizing occupant, according to parameter setting values of an evacuation model. The core of the claim is "generating routes ... according to parameter setting values of an evacuation model." This involves gathering data (occupant locations, model parameters), applying a set of rules or algorithms (the evacuation model) to that data, and outputting a result (the routes). These steps are fundamentally logical operations that a person could, in theory, perform mentally, perhaps with pen and paper, given enough time and simple parameters. The "evacuation unit" merely automates this mental process using generic computer components. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 7 further recites wherein the evacuation unit comprises a calculation part and a selection part,
the calculation part is configured to calculate distances from a current location of the particular occupant to a plurality of the exits for escaping from the building, the calculation part is configured to calculate a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the exits, and
the selection part is configured to select the detour from a plurality of the moving routes by using the distances and the degrees of risk calculated by the calculation part. The core logic of "calculating distances" and "assessing risk" to decide on a "detour" is a form of problem-solving and decision-making that can be performed entirely in the human mind. Calculating distances (e.g., using algorithms) and assigning a "degree of risk" (which likely involves a mathematical formula or a set of rules) falls under the category of mathematical concepts or formulas, which by themselves are exceptions to patent eligibility. Selecting a detour based on these factors is a generic problem-solving mental step or a method of organizing human activity (evacuation planning). The claim describes the invention in terms of functional "parts" (a calculation part and a selection part) without specifying how these components are implemented in a non-generic, inventive way. Simply stating that generic computer components to perform an abstract task does not make it patent-eligible. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 8 further recites wherein the calculation part is configured to calculate, for the respective exits, weight functions in which the distances and the degrees of risk for the respective exits are used as factors, and the selection part is configured to select, as the detour, the moving route to a particular one of the exits that has the lowest output value of the weight function. The claim describes a method for solving a problem: calculating weighted functions using distance and risk factors for different exits, and selecting the route to the exit with the lowest value. This involves a mathematical concept (calculating a function) and a mental process (evaluating options and selecting the best one based on criteria). The claim recites a "calculation part" and "selection part" but only describes them functionally ("configured to calculate," "configured to select"). These are considered generic computer components or functions. Merely requiring a generic computer to implement an abstract idea is not enough to transform it into a patent-eligible invention. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Claim 9 further recites wherein the evacuation unit comprises a determination part configured to use building information, placement information of the occupants, and fire information including the limiting factor to determine at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is recognized, as a recognizing occupant, the calculation part is configured to calculate the distances and the degrees of risk only for the recognizing occupant every set period, and the selection part is configured to select the detour from the plurality of the moving routes only for the recognizing occupant. The claim involves a series of logical steps that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper: Identifying who is in a "recognition area" based on known locations (building and occupant info), Estimating distances and "degrees of risk" (mathematical/logical assessment) and choosing an alternative route (decision-making). This is a process of collecting data, analyzing it, and providing a result—which are "mental processes" or "methods of organizing human activity," both of which are categories of ineligible abstract ideas. The claim uses functional language ("determination part," "calculation part," "selection part"). These "parts" are typically interpreted as generic computer processors programmed to perform the stated functions. Claim therefore, when taken as a whole, still does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim recites unpatentable ineligible subject matter for the same reasoning and analysis as mentioned for claim 1.
Regarding claim 10
Step 2A prong 1
under a definition of a limiting factor including at least one selected from a group of flame, smoke, and an obstacle caused by a fire in a building, identifying a "limiting factor" like smoke or flames is viewed as a form of observation or judgment. (A human can look at a room, identify fire-related obstacles, and decide whether to record (claim) that data. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, then it falls under the “Mental Process” of abstract idea.)
determining, in a determination step, at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is visually recognized, as a recognizing occupant by using the building information, the placement information, and the fire information; (The claim describes a process of observation, evaluation, and judgment: gathering information (building, placement, fire info), visually recognizing a "limiting factor," and making a determination about occupants. These actions (observation, evaluation, judgment, and determination based on information) are considered concepts that can be performed entirely in the human mind or with basic tools like pen and paper.)
calculating, in a calculation step, distances from a current location of the recognizing occupant to a plurality of exits for escaping from the building, and calculating a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the exits; (Determining the distance between a current location and multiple exits is a mathematical operation that a person could perform mentally or manually. Evaluating risk based on "limiting factors" along a route involves qualitative or quantitative judgments—such as observations and evaluations—which categorizes as mental processes. Because the claim specifically "recites" a calculation step to determine variables (distance and risk), it also falls into the mathematical concepts grouping)
selecting, in a selection step, a detour from a plurality of the moving routes by using the distances and the degrees of risk. (The process of evaluating multiple potential routes based on criteria like "distance" and "degree of risk" and then selecting one is something a human could do in their mind, possibly with the aid of pen and paper)
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a receiving, in a reception step, building information, placement information of occupants who are present in the building, and fire information including the limiting factor which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining data using generic sensor), and fall under the insignificant pre-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) and recognized it as generic computer functions that is well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); The additional elements of a simulation method performed by a simulation apparatus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Simply limiting the abstract idea of pathfinding to the environment of "a building on fire" does not constitute a practical application that transforms the idea into something more than the exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
In view of Step 2B, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited exception,
i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a receiving, in a reception step, building information, placement information of occupants who are present in the building, and fire information including the limiting factor which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining data using generic sensor), and fall under the insignificant pre-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements of a simulation method performed by a simulation apparatus are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); Simply limiting the abstract idea of pathfinding to the environment of "a building on fire" does not constitute a practical application that transforms the idea into something more than the exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Thus, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (PUB NO: KR20210055150A)
Regarding claim 1
Kang teaches a simulation apparatus, (see para 0016- Among the embodiments, the virtual reality-based fire evacuation simulation device includes a data collection unit that collects data related to the creation of a fire evacuation scenario including building information and requestor (experienced person) information, based on the collected data, fire and it includes a scenario creation unit that creates an evacuation scenario, and a fire evacuation simulation unit) comprising:
an evacuation unit configured to simulate evacuation routes for occupants who are in a building when the building is on fire, (see para 16- a fire evacuation simulation unit that executes a fire evacuation simulation according to the created scenario to provide a virtual reality image in which a fire occurs in a building and a person who needs (experienced person) evacuates. see para 74-76-The fire evacuation simulation unit 350 may output a virtual reality image in which a fire occurs in a building by simulating a fire and an evacuation situation according to the prepared fire evacuation scenario through the experiencer terminal device 110 . In an embodiment, the fire evacuation simulation unit 350 may execute a simulation through a simulation program such as Fire Dynamic Simulation (FDS), Pathfinder, Simulax, A* algorithm, artisoc, etc. Pathfinder is an agent-based evacuation simulator, and includes not only basic walking simulation, but also various functions necessary for simulation such as spatial data authoring and editing, and 3D result analysis.]
wherein under a definition of a limiting factor including at least one selected from a group of flame, smoke, and an obstacle caused by a fire, (see para 0005-0006-In the case of fire, as urban buildings become taller and denser, the form of fire is becoming more complex and diversified, and damage to life and property due to fire is increasing. In case of a fire, field activities are disrupted due to poor visibility of rescuers due to toxic gas generated during combustion and agricultural smoke. Since the risk of secondary disasters increases, early fire detection and suppression is very important. At the site of a fire, various obstacles such as poor visibility due to smoke, slipping by fire water, falling objects, and electric leakage may occur, so the risk of safety accidents for firefighters and rescuers is high, and the specific fire situation and building Since there is a limit to providing information, it is difficult to conduct firefighting activities quickly and safely. In particular, since the temperature, humidity, and concentration of combustible smoke at the fire site cannot be easily grasped, the crews mainly rely on their senses to carry out their work.)
when the limiting factor is present between a particular occupant among the occupants and an exit at the shortest distance, the evacuation unit is configured to generate a detour for the particular occupant to bypass the limiting factor. (see para 21- The fire evacuation simulation unit can provide guidance to the user through MAS (Multi Agent System)-based artisco to induce detour evacuation according to the level of risk corresponding to the fire area according to the spread of fire. see para 0078-0083- A* algorithm is an algorithm used to find the shortest route in evacuation simulators such as Simulax, Pathfinder, Building Exodus, etc., and can calculate the evacuation time while moving from the occupant's location to the nearest evacuation exit. The fire evacuation simulation unit 350 may derive results that can reflect various variables for a specific situation by simulating agents with cognitive ability. For example, when an evacuation situation occurs, the fire evacuation simulation unit 350 can bypass and evacuate in a safe direction even when the shortest distance passing through the disaster zone exists. Here, the fire evacuation simulation unit 350 may provide guidance that can induce a detour evacuation according to the level of risk corresponding to the fire area according to the spread of fire to the requester through MAS (Multi Agent System)-based artisco.)
Regarding claim 2
Kang further teaches a fire unit configured to simulate the fire occurring in the building, (see para 20- The fire evacuation simulation unit applies BIM (Building Information Modeling) of the demonstration building to FDS (Fire Dynamic Simulation) to model the spread of the fire, and applies the BIM of the demonstration building to Pathfinder to place the requester and Diffusion modeling can be applied to simulate escape and death of the claimant.)
wherein the fire unit is configured to generate fire information including the limiting factor that spreads over time, (see para 20- The fire evacuation simulation unit applies BIM (Building Information Modeling) of the demonstration building to FDS (Fire Dynamic Simulation) to model the spread of the fire, and applies the BIM of the demonstration building to Pathfinder to place the requester and Diffusion modeling can be applied to simulate escape and death of the claimant. See para 62-The scenario creation unit 330 may create a fire evacuation scenario according to the sequence of actions of the requester according to the passage of time after the occurrence of a fire. The sequence of actions according to the passage of time after the occurrence of a fire is shown in FIG. 4) and
the evacuation unit is configured to generate the detour by using the limiting factor included in the fire information. (See para 21-The fire evacuation simulation unit may provide guidance for inducing a detour evacuation according to the degree of risk corresponding to the fire area according to the spread of fire to the requestor through artisco based on MAS (Multi Agent System).)
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.
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.
11. Claim(s) 3-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (PUB NO: KR-20210055150-A) in view of LEE et al. "(Fire evacuation simulation using FFM and FDS." Journal of the Korean Association of Geographic Information Studies 21.2 (2018): 56-67)
Regarding claim 3
Kang further teaches wherein the evacuation unit is configured to determine whether each of the occupants recognizes the limiting factor, (see para 19- The scenario creation unit may create a fire evacuation scenario according to the sequence of actions according to the passage of time from occurrence of a fire to recognition of fire signs, confirmation of fire, preparation for evacuation action, and evacuation start. See also para 65- Referring to FIG. 4 , the stage before attempting to escape or evacuate after a building fire consists of 'fire recognition ⇒ alarm ⇒ escape decision ⇒ start to move', which may lead to an escape and evacuation phase. see para 78-80- The A* algorithm is an algorithm used to find the shortest route in evacuation simulators such as Simulax, Pathfinder, and Building Exodus. In the A* algorithm, it is impossible to immediately evacuate toward the exit in the event of an actual disaster because there is an unaware person who does not know the shortest path to the emergency exit in the building, and the possibility of using the exit passage is relatively high, and as a result, the route that is intended to be used to exit the building has a problem in that it can be ignored in an actual evacuation situation. In an embodiment, the fire evacuation simulation unit 350 may reflect the action of the requester in the fire evacuation simulation. Here, the fire evacuation simulation unit 350 may reflect the instincts possessed by the person requesting a fire in the case of a human fire, such as a home instinct, an instinct to watch, an instinct to follow, an instinct to evacuate, a left turn, etc. to the fire evacuation simulation. In particular, the evacuation instinct to move away from a dangerous place may be the most important factor in producing an evacuation result as it determines life or death. These characteristics are determined by the delivery of safety and hazard information and enable the review of platoon guidance in fire evacuation simulations.)
Kang does not teach to generate the detour only for a recognizing occupant who recognizes the limiting factor.
In the related field of invention, LEE teaches generate the detour only for a recognizing occupant who recognizes the limiting factor. (See section 3.2.1-The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour. See section 3.2-In FFM, the agent moves with only considering eight adjacent cells. It decreases the computational complexity, which is an advantage, but it is an inherent limitation that the agent cannot recognize fire until it is in a directly adjacent cell. See section conclusion-This study had limitations of not reflecting the psychological or behavioral patterns of pedestrians in the fire situation and applying only one assumption that evacuees unconditionally detoured when they recognized a fire.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fire evacuation as disclosed by Kang to include generate the detour only for a recognizing occupant who recognizes the limiting factor as taught by LEE in the system of Kang in order to use a fire evacuation simulation technique that describe the movement of pedestrians with considering the fire spread. The proposed simulation technique applies the fire spread data of the fire dynamics simulator (FDS) to the floor field model (FFM) and then it models that pedestrians recognizes the fire and take a detour to a safe route. Another motivation is to diagnose the safety of a building in the case of the fire and evacuation. (see abstract, LEE)
Regarding claim 4
Kang further teaches wherein the evacuation unit comprises a reception part, the reception part is configured to receive building information, placement information of the occupants, and fire information including the limiting factor, (see para 16-Among the embodiments, the virtual reality-based fire evacuation simulation device includes a data collection unit that collects data related to the creation of a fire evacuation scenario including building information and requester (experienced person) information, and fire and evacuation based on the collected data. See para 59-The data collection unit 310 may collect data necessary for creating a scenario including at least the fire evacuation simulation experience, that is, the person requesting information. In an embodiment, the data collection unit 310 may collect requestor (experienced person) information through reception of an experienced person or a survey before and after the experience. Here, the requestor information may include gender, age, physical characteristics including height and weight, education level, occupation, and the like. In an embodiment, the data collection unit 310 may collect building information according to uses such as large-scale sales and business facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, lodging facilities, and underground spaces. Here, the building information can be used in Building Information Models (BMI) to digitally create one or more accurate virtual models of buildings. See also para 88 and 91)
Kang does not teach the determination part is configured to use the building information, the placement information, and the fire information to determine at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is visually recognized, as a recognizing occupant, and the evacuation unit is configured to generate the detour only for the recognizing occupant.
However, LEE further teaches the determination part is configured to use the building information, the placement information, and the fire information to determine at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is visually recognized, as a recognizing occupant, (see section 3.2.1-The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour.)
the evacuation unit is configured to generate the detour only for the recognizing occupant. (See section 3.2.1-The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour. See section 3.2-In FFM, the agent moves with only considering eight adjacent cells. It decreases the computational complexity, which is an advantage, but it is an inherent limitation that the agent cannot recognize fire until it is in a directly adjacent cell. See section conclusion-This study had limitations of not reflecting the psychological or behavioral patterns of pedestrians in the fire situation and applying only one assumption that evacuees unconditionally detoured when they recognized a fire.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fire evacuation as disclosed by Kang to include the determination part is configured to use the building information, the placement information, and the fire information to determine at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is visually recognized, as a recognizing occupant, and the evacuation unit is configured to generate the detour only for the recognizing occupant as taught by LEE in the system of Kang in order to use a fire evacuation simulation technique that describe the movement of pedestrians with considering the fire spread. The proposed simulation technique applies the fire spread data of the fire dynamics simulator (FDS) to the floor field model (FFM) and then it models that pedestrians recognizes the fire and take a detour to a safe route. Another motivation is to diagnose the safety of a building in the case of the fire and evacuation. (see abstract, LEE)
Regarding claim 5
Kang does not teach wherein the determination part is configured to repeat a process of determination of the recognizing occupant every set period, the determination part is configured to determine, when a particular occupant moving on the shortest route to a particular exit in a previous period enters the recognition area on the shortest route, the particular occupant newly entering the recognition area as the recognizing occupant, and the evacuation unit is configured to provide the particular occupant with the detour instead of the existing shortest route for the particular occupant newly determined as the recognizing occupant.
However, LEE further teaches wherein the determination part is configured to repeat a process of determination of the recognizing occupant every set period, (see section 3.1.2 When conducting FDS, a user inputs a time interval for analyzing results. When conducting FDS, a user inputs a time interval for analyzing results. The fire spread data show the results by the voxel unit according to the time interval. Therefore, if the fire spread data is collected N times for the entire simulation, the fire spread field will be renewed N times as well)
the determination part is configured to determine, when a particular occupant moving on the shortest route to a particular exit in a previous period enters the recognition area on the shortest route, the particular occupant newly entering the recognition area as the recognizing occupant, ((see section 3.2.1-The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour.) and
the evacuation unit is configured to provide the particular occupant with the detour instead of the existing shortest route for the particular occupant newly determined as the recognizing occupant. (See section 3.2.2-An agent entering the fire recognition field take a detour to an exit, which has the minimum risk factors and the shortest travel distance. This algorithm forces the agent to use the found exit as a destination.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fire evacuation as disclosed by Kang to include wherein the determination part is configured to repeat a process of determination of the recognizing occupant every set period, the determination part is configured to determine, when a particular occupant moving on the shortest route to a particular exit in a previous period enters the recognition area on the shortest route, the particular occupant newly entering the recognition area as the recognizing occupant, and the evacuation unit is configured to provide the particular occupant with the detour instead of the existing shortest route for the particular occupant newly determined as the recognizing occupant as taught by LEE in the system of Kang in order to use a fire evacuation simulation technique that describe the movement of pedestrians with considering the fire spread. The proposed simulation technique applies the fire spread data of the fire dynamics simulator (FDS) to the floor field model (FFM) and then it models that pedestrians recognizes the fire and take a detour to a safe route. Another motivation is to diagnose the safety of a building in the case of the fire and evacuation. (see abstract, LEE)
Regarding claim 6
Kang does not teach wherein the evacuation unit is configured to generate routes for the remaining occupants excluding the recognizing occupant, according to parameter setting values of an evacuation model.
However, LEE further teaches wherein the evacuation unit is configured to generate routes for the remaining occupants excluding the recognizing occupant, according to parameter setting values of an evacuation model. (see section 2.1- FFM describes the overall evacuation situation by integrating the conditions of the floor fields. Static floor field (SFF) indicates how easy a pedestrian can move to an exit from each cell and SFF is assigned to each cell. The distance to the exit is generally used for variable of SFF. Dynamic floor field (DFF) is also assigned to each cell and it indicates the interaction between neighboring pedestrian. It means the attraction and repulsion effects between one pedestrian and another pedestrian. Figure 2 shows the structure of FFM consisting of spatial data and two floor fields. A pedestrian determines the next cell to move by calculating the SFF and DFF values of surrounding cells at each time step. See section 3.2.1-A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour. See section 3.2-In FFM, the agent moves with only considering eight adjacent cells. It decreases the computational complexity, which is an advantage, but it is an inherent limitation that the agent cannot recognize fire until it is in a directly adjacent cell.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fire evacuation as disclosed by Kang to include wherein the evacuation unit is configured to generate routes for the remaining occupants excluding the recognizing occupant, according to parameter setting values of an evacuation model as taught by LEE in the system of Kang in order to use a fire evacuation simulation technique that describe the movement of pedestrians with considering the fire spread. The proposed simulation technique applies the fire spread data of the fire dynamics simulator (FDS) to the floor field model (FFM) and then it models that pedestrians recognizes the fire and take a detour to a safe route. Another motivation is to diagnose the safety of a building in the case of the fire and evacuation. (see abstract, LEE)
Regarding claim 7
Kang teaches the calculation part is configured to calculate distances from a current location of the particular occupant to (see para 78-The A* algorithm is an algorithm used to find the shortest route in evacuation simulators such as Simulax, Pathfinder, and Building Exodus. In the A* algorithm, it is impossible to immediately evacuate toward the exit in the event of an actual disaster because there is an unaware person who does not know the shortest path to the emergency exit in the building, and the possibility of using the exit passage is relatively high, and as a result, the route that is intended to be used to exit the building has a problem in that it can be ignored in an actual evacuation situation. Edges connecting safe nodes store only distance, while edges located in a dangerous space or showing connectivity with a dangerous space stores a weight in addition to a distance)
Kang also mentions degree of risk. (see para 21-The fire evacuation simulation unit may provide guidance for inducing a detour evacuation according to the degree of risk corresponding to the fire area according to the spread of fire to the requestor through artisco based on MAS (Multi Agent System).
Kang does not teach wherein the evacuation unit comprises a calculation part and a selection part, the calculation part is configured to calculate distances from a current location of the particular occupant to a plurality of the exits for escaping from the building, the calculation part is configured to calculate a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the exits, and
the selection part is configured to select the detour from a plurality of the moving routes by using the distances and the degrees of risk calculated by the calculation part.
However, LEE further teaches wherein the evacuation unit comprises a calculation part and a selection part(see section 3.2.2 and fig 8-9-When the sum of distance and weight is equal to the evacuation cost, the evacuation cost is renewed along with the fire spread field. The figure 9 shows Graph network without and with fire. Based on the described data structure, when an agent entering in a fire recognition field is observed, an exit having the minimum evacuation cost is explored with using the node where the agent is located as a starting point by using Dijkstra algorithm.
the calculation part is configured to calculate distances from a current location of the particular occupant to a plurality of the exits for escaping from the building, (see section 3.2.2 and fig 8-9-The edge, which means the connectivity between the nodes, stores the distance between nodes. The value is the distance between the center cell of each node.
Examiner note: Exits are nodes in the graph, distance are calculated to multiple exits.
the calculation part is configured to calculate a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the exits, (see section 3.2.2-When a node has heat or smoke (fire spread field) or is located in a fire recognition field, this study added weights to the connectivity to adjacent nodes. Edges connecting safe nodes store only distance, while edges located in a dangerous space or showing connectivity with a dangerous space stores a weight in addition to a distance. When the weight of an edge belonging only to a fire recognition field is w, the weight of the edge belonging to a fire spread field is w2. It was to distinguish between the case of just recognizing the fire and the case of affected by the fire. A very large value, close to infinity, is assigned to w2.)
Examiner note: These weights represent degrees of risk due to limiting factors such as fire and smoke.
the selection part is configured to select the detour from a plurality of the moving routes by using the distances and the degrees of risk calculated by the calculation part, (see section 3.2.2- When the sum of distance and weight is equal to the evacuation cost, the evacuation cost is renewed along with the fire spread field. The figure 9 shows Graph network without and with fire Based on the described data structure, when an agent entering in a fire recognition field is observed, an exit having the minimum evacuation cost is explored with using the node where the agent is located as a starting point by using Dijkstra algorithm. When an exit is found, the SFF of the agent is renewed to only have the found exit. This algorithm forces the agent to use the found exit as a destination.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fire evacuation as disclosed by Kang to include wherein the evacuation unit comprises a calculation part and a selection part, the calculation part is configured to calculate distances from a current location of the particular occupant to a plurality of the exits for escaping from the building, the calculation part is configured to calculate a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the exits, and the selection part is configured to select the detour from a plurality of the moving routes by using the distances and the degrees of risk calculated by the calculation part as taught by LEE in the system of Kang in order to use a fire evacuation simulation technique that describe the movement of pedestrians with considering the fire spread. The proposed simulation technique applies the fire spread data of the fire dynamics simulator (FDS) to the floor field model (FFM) and then it models that pedestrians recognizes the fire and take a detour to a safe route. Another motivation is to diagnose the safety of a building in the case of the fire and evacuation. (see abstract, LEE)
Regarding claim 8
Kang does not teach wherein the calculation part is configured to calculate, for the respective exits, weight functions in which the distances and the degrees of risk for the respective exits are used as factors, and
the selection part is configured to select, as the detour, the moving route to a particular one of the exits that has the lowest output value of the weight function.
However, LEE further teaches wherein the calculation part is configured to calculate, for the respective exits, weight functions in which the distances and the degrees of risk for the respective exits are used as factors, (see section-3.2.2 The edge, which means the connectivity between the nodes, stores the distance between nodes. When a node has heat or smoke (fire spread field) or is located in a fire recognition field, this study added weights to the connectivity to adjacent nodes. Edges connecting safe nodes store only distance, while edges located in a dangerous space or showing connectivity with a dangerous space stores a weight in addition to a distance. When the weight of an edge belonging only to a fire recognition field is w, the weight of the edge belonging to a fire spread field is w2. It was to distinguish between the case of just recognizing the fire and the case of affected by the fire. A very large value, close to infinity, is assigned to w2. When the sum of distance and weight is equal to the evacuation cost, the evacuation cost is renewed along with the fire spread field.) and
the selection part is configured to select, as the detour, the moving route to a particular one of the exits that has the lowest output value of the weight function. (See section 3.2.2- Based on the described data structure, when an agent entering in a fire recognition field is observed, an exit having the minimum evacuation cost is explored with using the node where the agent is located as a starting point by using Dijkstra algorithm. When an exit is found, the SFF of the agent is renewed to only have the found exit. This algorithm forces the agent to use the found exit as a destination.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fire evacuation as disclosed by Kang to include wherein the calculation part is configured to calculate, for the respective exits, weight functions in which the distances and the degrees of risk for the respective exits are used as factors, and the selection part is configured to select, as the detour, the moving route to a particular one of the exits that has the lowest output value of the weight function as taught by LEE in the system of Kang in order to use a fire evacuation simulation technique that describe the movement of pedestrians with considering the fire spread. The proposed simulation technique applies the fire spread data of the fire dynamics simulator (FDS) to the floor field model (FFM) and then it models that pedestrians recognizes the fire and take a detour to a safe route. Another motivation is to diagnose the safety of a building in the case of the fire and evacuation. (see abstract, LEE)
Regarding claim 9
Kang further teaches wherein the evacuation unit comprises a determination part configured to use building information, placement information of the occupants, and fire information including the limiting factor (see Kang para 59-60 and 83)
Kang does not teach wherein the evacuation unit comprises a determination part configured to use building information, placement information of the occupants, and fire information including the limiting factor to determine at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is recognized, as a recognizing occupant, the calculation part is configured to calculate the distances and the degrees of risk only for the recognizing occupant every set period, and the selection part is configured to select the detour from the plurality of the moving routes only for the recognizing occupant.
However, LEE further teaches wherein the evacuation unit comprises a determination part configured to use building information, placement information of the occupants, and fire information including the limiting factor to determine at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is recognized, as a recognizing occupant, (see section 3.2.1-The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour.)
the calculation part is configured to calculate the distances and the degrees of risk only for the recognizing occupant every set period, (see section 3.1.2 When conducting FDS, a user inputs a time interval for analyzing results. When conducting FDS, a user inputs a time interval for analyzing results. The fire spread data show the results by the voxel unit according to the time interval. Therefore, if the fire spread data is collected N times for the entire simulation, the fire spread field will be renewed N times as well. section 3.2.1- A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour. see section-3.2.2 The edge, which means the connectivity between the nodes, stores the distance between nodes. When a node has heat or smoke (fire spread field) or is located in a fire recognition field, this study added weights to the connectivity to adjacent nodes. Edges connecting safe nodes store only distance, while edges located in a dangerous space or showing connectivity with a dangerous space stores a weight in addition to a distance. When the weight of an edge belonging only to a fire recognition field is w, the weight of the edge belonging to a fire spread field is w2. It was to distinguish between the case of just recognizing the fire and the case of affected by the fire. A very large value, close to infinity, is assigned to w2. When the sum of distance and weight is equal to the evacuation cost, the evacuation cost is renewed along with the fire spread field.) and
the selection part is configured to select the detour from the plurality of the moving routes only for the recognizing occupant. (See section 3.2.1-The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour. See section 3.2-In FFM, the agent moves with only considering eight adjacent cells. It decreases the computational complexity, which is an advantage, but it is an inherent limitation that the agent cannot recognize fire until it is in a directly adjacent cell. See section conclusion-This study had limitations of not reflecting the psychological or behavioral patterns of pedestrians in the fire situation and applying only one assumption that evacuees unconditionally detoured when they recognized a fire. See section 3.2.2- Based on the described data structure, when an agent entering in a fire recognition field is observed, an exit having the minimum evacuation cost is explored with using the node where the agent is located as a starting point by using Dijkstra algorithm. When an exit is found, the SFF of the agent is renewed to only have the found exit. This algorithm forces the agent to use the found exit as a destination)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fire evacuation as disclosed by Kang to include wherein the evacuation unit comprises a determination part configured to use building information, placement information of the occupants, and fire information including the limiting factor to determine at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is recognized, as a recognizing occupant, the calculation part is configured to calculate the distances and the degrees of risk only for the recognizing occupant every set period, and the selection part is configured to select the detour from the plurality of the moving routes only for the recognizing occupant as taught by LEE in the system of Kang in order to use a fire evacuation simulation technique that describe the movement of pedestrians with considering the fire spread. The proposed simulation technique applies the fire spread data of the fire dynamics simulator (FDS) to the floor field model (FFM) and then it models that pedestrians recognizes the fire and take a detour to a safe route. Another motivation is to diagnose the safety of a building in the case of the fire and evacuation. (see abstract, LEE)
Regarding claim 10
Kang teaches a simulation method performed by a simulation apparatus, (see para 0016- Among the embodiments, the virtual reality-based fire evacuation simulation device includes a data collection unit that collects data related to the creation of a fire evacuation scenario including building information and requestor (experienced person) information, based on the collected data, fire and it includes a scenario creation unit that creates an evacuation scenario, and a fire evacuation simulation unit), the method comprising:
under a definition of a limiting factor including at least one selected from a group of flame, smoke, and an obstacle caused by a fire in a building, (see para 0005-0006-In the case of fire, as urban buildings become taller and denser, the form of fire is becoming more complex and diversified, and damage to life and property due to fire is increasing. In case of a fire, field activities are disrupted due to poor visibility of rescuers due to toxic gas generated during combustion and agricultural smoke. Since the risk of secondary disasters increases, early fire detection and suppression is very important. At the site of a fire, various obstacles such as poor visibility due to smoke, slipping by fire water, falling objects, and electric leakage may occur, so the risk of safety accidents for firefighters and rescuers is high, and the specific fire situation and building Since there is a limit to providing information, it is difficult to conduct firefighting activities quickly and safely. In particular, since the temperature, humidity, and concentration of combustible smoke at the fire site cannot be easily grasped, the crews mainly rely on their senses to carry out their work.]
receiving, in a reception step, building information, placement information of occupants who are present in the building, and fire information including the limiting factor; (see para 16-Among the embodiments, the virtual reality-based fire evacuation simulation device includes a data collection unit that collects data related to the creation of a fire evacuation scenario including building information and requester (experienced person) information, and fire and evacuation based on the collected data. See para 59-The data collection unit 310 may collect data necessary for creating a scenario including at least the fire evacuation simulation experience, that is, the person requesting information. In an embodiment, the data collection unit 310 may collect requestor (experienced person) information through reception of an experienced person or a survey before and after the experience. Here, the requestor information may include gender, age, physical characteristics including height and weight, education level, occupation, and the like. In an embodiment, the data collection unit 310 may collect building information according to uses such as large-scale sales and business facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, lodging facilities, and underground spaces. Here, the building information can be used in Building Information Models (BMI) to digitally create one or more accurate virtual models of buildings. See also para 88 and 91)
Kang does not teach determining, in a determination step, at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is visually recognized, as a recognizing occupant by using the building information, the placement information, and the fire information; calculating, in a calculation step, distances from a current location of the recognizing occupant to a plurality of exits for escaping from the building, and calculating a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the exits; and selecting, in a selection step, a detour from a plurality of the moving routes by using the distances and the degrees of risk.
In the related field of invention, LEE teaches determining, in a determination step, at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is visually recognized, as a recognizing occupant by using the building information, the placement information, and the fire information; (see section 3.2.1-The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour.)
calculating, in a calculation step, distances from a current location of the recognizing occupant to a plurality of exits for escaping from the building, and calculating a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the exits; (see section 3.2.2 and fig 8-9-The edge, which means the connectivity between the nodes, stores the distance between nodes. The value is the distance between the center cell of each node. When a node has heat or smoke (fire spread field) or is located in a fire recognition field, this study added weights to the connectivity to adjacent nodes. Edges connecting safe nodes store only distance, while edges located in a dangerous space or showing connectivity with a dangerous space stores a weight in addition to a distance. When the weight of an edge belonging only to a fire recognition field is w, the weight of the edge belonging to a fire spread field is w2. It was to distinguish between the case of just recognizing the fire and the case of affected by the fire. A very large value, close to infinity, is assigned to w2.)
Examiner note: Examiner note: Exits are nodes in the graph, distance is calculated to multiple exits. These weights represent degrees of risk due to limiting factors such as fire and smoke.
selecting, in a selection step, a detour from a plurality of the moving routes by using the distances and the degrees of risk. (see section 3.2.2- When the sum of distance and weight is equal to the evacuation cost, the evacuation cost is renewed along with the fire spread field. The figure 9 shows Graph network without and with fire Based on the described data structure, when an agent entering in a fire recognition field is observed, an exit having the minimum evacuation cost is explored with using the node where the agent is located as a starting point by using Dijkstra algorithm. When an exit is found, the SFF of the agent is renewed to only have the found exit. This algorithm forces the agent to use the found exit as a destination.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for fire evacuation as disclosed by Kang to include determining, in a determination step, at least one of the occupants who is present in a recognition area where the limiting factor is visually recognized, as a recognizing occupant by using the building information, the placement information, and the fire information; calculating, in a calculation step, distances from a current location of the recognizing occupant to a plurality of exits for escaping from the building, and calculating a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the exits; and selecting, in a selection step, a detour from a plurality of the moving routes by using the distances and the degrees of risk as taught by LEE in the system of Kang in order to use a fire evacuation simulation technique that describe the movement of pedestrians with considering the fire spread. The proposed simulation technique applies the fire spread data of the fire dynamics simulator (FDS) to the floor field model (FFM) and then it models that pedestrians recognizes the fire and take a detour to a safe route. Another motivation is to diagnose the safety of a building in the case of the fire and evacuation. (see abstract, LEE)
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nemeth US 20210193336 A1
ii. Discussing integrating building automation emergency response systems into building automation systems, and to dynamically directing occupants to a safe location in the event of an emergency.
13. All claims 1-10 are rejected.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PURSOTTAM GIRI whose telephone number is (469)295-9101. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 PM, Monday to Friday.
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, RENEE CHAVEZ can be reached at 5712701104. 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.
/PURSOTTAM GIRI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186