Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-2 and 7-10 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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered and considered by the examiner. By the
amendment, claims 1-2 and 7-10 are amended and claims 3-6 are cancelled. In view of amendment made, the previous 112 rejection of the claim are withdrawn. Following Applicants arguments and amendments made, Examiner modify the prior art rejections. And, the 101 rejection is still maintained. See office action for detail.
Applicant arguments on 101 rejections
These limitations cannot practically be performed mentally. A human cannot simulate hundreds of occupants' dynamic movements in a burning building while accounting for spreading flames/smoke in real-time, nor compute risk-weighted detours across multiple exits iteratively.
Examiner response
Applicant arguments on human mind is not capable of performing the claimed task is unpersuasive. As MPEP (2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)) states using a computer as tool to perform a mental process falls under the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Generic computer system performing a generic computer function such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind. Further there is a big difference between improvement in the computer functionally and computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Even though applicant argues emulate hundreds (or more) of computer operations of occupants' dynamic movements in a burning building cannot performed in the human mind, however this process/step is merely using computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an evaluation or judgment or observation 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. Claim limitations are mental deliberations that a human being (such as building evacuee) could perform in their head or using simple pen and paper. 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).) Thus, claim is directed to abstract idea.
Applicant arguments
Further, even if an abstract idea is recited, the claims integrate it into a practical application. The claims improve computer functionality in the field of fire safety simulation by enabling realistic modeling of occupant detours around dynamic fire hazards, addressing a root technological deficiency in prior systems. The combination of elements—dynamic fire integration, recognition area determination, periodic risk/distance calculations, and detour selection—is unconventional, as evidenced by the Specification's critique of the prior art and the Office Action’s reliance on multiple references for § 103 rejections (Kang lacking detour specifics, modified by Lee).
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. According to the MPEP 2106.05(a): It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. Also, according to the MPEP 2106.05(a), II.: "it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology." Dynamic fire integration, recognition areas, and periodic risk calculations—constitutes mental processes. Humans (such as safety engineers) perform these exact evaluations when planning building evacuations. The applicant argues there is an improvement in "computer functionality," but the claims only describe receiving data, running a calculation, and selecting an outcome (detour) which is an improvement in the abstract idea itself. There is no specific technical solution claimed for how the computer processes this data more efficiently, manages memory, or optimizes network traffic. Merely automating an abstract process to run on generic computer hardware or processors does not render the claim patent-eligible. The instant claims do not recite or disclose additional elements that leads to improvements to a computer or any other technology (only a generic processor), MPEP2106.05(a). The claims do not apply or involve a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The claims do not apply or perform the abstract idea with a particular machine, MPEP 2106.06b. The claims to do transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (data remains data when processed by a computer), MPEP 2106.05c. The claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a processor), such that the claims are a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea (i.e. the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Applicant argues the Office Action’s reliance on multiple references for § 103 rejections (Kang lacking detour specifics, modified by Lee) which is unpersuasive. According to the MPEP 2106.05 (I)- “In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces."). Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101”. Thus, patentability under § 102/103 is a completely separate statutory test from § 101 subject matter eligibility.
Applicant arguments on 103 rejections
Applicant argues the combination of Kang and LEE does not teach or suggest determining a subset of “recognizing occupants” who are present in a visual recognition area, and generating a detour only for those recognizing occupants, while the remaining (non-recognizing) occupants continue to follow standard evacuation-model parameter settings, and repeating the recognition determination every set period so that an occupant who newly enters the recognition area on its prior shortest route is immediately switched to the detour, as claimed above.
Examiner response
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee still teaches determining a “recognizing occupants” who are present in a visual recognition area, and generating a detour only for those recognizing occupants. See Lee section 3.2 and fig 6- “The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. The space is called a fire recognition field and it is calculated separately. A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour. An agent entering the fire recognition field take a detour to an exit, which has the minimum risk factors and the shortest travel distance.”
PNG
media_image1.png
238
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee explicitly mentions "a pedestrian" or "an agent" entering the "fire recognition field." This matches the claim's requirement to identify occupants within the recognition area. Lee further defines the fire recognition field as the specific "space where agents can recognize the fire." Figure 6 visually illustrates this field ("Recognition area") expanding around the "Fired area." Lee further states that once an occupant enters this field, they "select a detour." This behavioral change confirms that the system identifies them as having recognized the fire (i.e., a "recognizing occupant") and triggers a logic shift for their pathfinding.
Lee further teaches repeat a process of determination of the recognizing occupant every set period, (see section 3.1.2 and fig 6-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. See section 3.2.1- Step 4. When the fire spread field is renewed, repeat from the Step 1 to renew the fire recognition field.)
Regarding the Applicant arguments on non-recognizing occupants- Kang para 78-79 teaches “unrecognized person who does not know the shortest route to the emergency exit in the building” and “Artisoc is a multi-agent simulation (MAS) platform”. The non-recognizing occupants or multi-agents of Kang provided to the LEE for further generating routes (see fig 13-15). Thus, the combination of Kang and Lee further teaches generate routes for the remaining occupants excluding the recognizing occupant, according to parameter setting values of an evacuation model.
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 1-2 and 7-10 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: 1-2 and 7-9 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
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 a shortest distance from the occupant, (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.)
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, generate the detour only for the recognizing occupant, repeat a process of determination of the recognizing occupant every set period, (using the data (building information, placement, fire information) and mentally processing it to determine who is in an area is a basic cognitive steps. A human can reasonably do this in their head or write it down on a piece of paper. The act of "generating a detour" is merely communicating a mental result or decision. Evaluating conditions and repeating a mental calculation at intervals is a mental manipulation of data.)
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, provide the particular occupant with the detour instead of an existing shortest route for the particular occupant newly determined as the recognizing occupant, and generate routes for the remaining occupants excluding the recognizing occupant, according to parameter setting values of an evacuation model. (The step-by-step logic of checking every "set period," determining who newly enters an recognition area, and updating routes for remaining individuals represents fundamental human reasoning and rules which are mental process. The steps of determining when an occupant enters a "recognition area," identifying them as a "recognizing occupant," providing them with a detour, and generating alternate routes for remaining occupants are purely cognitive or intellectual tasks. These are essentially mental deliberations that a human being (such as a safety manager or building evacuee) could perform in their head or using simple pen and paper. 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).)
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 receive 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), and fall under the insignificant pre-solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)) The additional elements of simulation apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and memory accessible to the at least one processor, the memory storing program commands that, when executed by the at least one processor 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 receive 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), 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 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 to: simulate the fire occurring in the building, generate fire information including the limiting factor that spreads over time, and 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 "wherein the program commands, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the simulation apparatus” 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 7 further recites to calculate distances from a current location of the particular occupant to a plurality of exits for escaping from the building, calculate a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the plurality of exits, and select the detour from each moving route based on the calculated distances and each calculated degree. 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 recites a "wherein the program commands, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the simulation apparatus” 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 8 further recites to calculate, for the respective exits, weight functions in which the calculated distances and degrees of risk for the respective exits are used as factors, and 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 "wherein the program commands, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the simulation apparatus” 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 9 further recites 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, calculate the distances and degrees of risk only for the recognizing occupant every set period, and select the detour from each moving route 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 recites a "wherein the program commands, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the simulation apparatus” 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.
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, only for the recognizing occupant. (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 § 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.
4. Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-10 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 1
Kang teaches a simulation apparatus, comprising: at least one processor; and memory accessible to the at least one processor, the memory storing program commands that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the simulation apparatus to: (see para 0016 and fig 2- 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. See para 52-53- Referring to FIG. 2, the fire evacuation simulation apparatus 130 may be implemented including a processor 210 , a memory 230 , a user input/output unit 250 , and a network input/output unit 270.) comprising:
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 a shortest distance from the particular occupant, the program commands, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the simulation apparatus (see fig 2) 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.)
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 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 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)
remaining occupants; (see para 78-79-The A* algorithm is an algorithm used to find the shortest route in evacuation simulators such as Simulax, Pathfinder, and Building Exodus, and evacuation time can be calculated while moving from the occupant's location toward the nearest evacuation exit. In the A* algorithm, there is an unrecognized person who does not know the shortest route to the emergency exit in the building, so it is impossible to immediately evacuate toward the exit in the event of a real disaster. The possibility of using the exit passage is relatively high, and as a result, there is a problem that the route that is intended to be used to exit the building may be ignored in an actual evacuation situation. Artisoc is a multi-agent simulation (MAS) platform, which uses an agent modeling language developed by combining BAISC and LOGO, and enables easy-to-understand two-dimensional and three-dimensional spatial expression, and artificial intelligence through information transmission in a disaster situation. Evacuation measures can be considered.)
Kang does not teach 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, generate the detour only for the recognizing occupant, repeat a process of determination of the recognizing occupant every set period, 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, provide the particular occupant with the detour instead of an existing shortest route for the particular occupant newly determined as the recognizing occupant, and generate routes for the remaining occupants excluding the recognizing occupant, according to parameter setting values of an evacuation model.
In the related field of invention, LEE teaches 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 3.2.1-3.2.2 and fig 6-The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. The space is called a fire recognition field and it is calculated separately. A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour. An agent entering the fire recognition field take a detour to an exit, which has the minimum risk factors and the shortest travel distance.)
generate the detour only for the recognizing occupant. (See section 3.2-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. 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. An agent entering the fire recognition field take a detour to an exit, which has the minimum risk factors and the shortest travel distance)
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. See section 3.2.1- Step 4. When the fire spread field is renewed, repeat from the Step 1 to renew the fire recognition field.)
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- This study assumed that “A pedestrian takes a detour when the person recognizes a risk factor in the moving direction” 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 see fig 14-15)
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 3.2.1-3.2.2- The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. The space is called a fire recognition field and it is calculated separately. 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. It describes a pedestrian who select the second-best option when the initially identified exit is no longer available. See also fig 14-15)
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 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, generate the detour only for the recognizing occupant, repeat a process of determination of the recognizing occupant every set period, 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, provide the particular occupant with the detour instead of an existing shortest route for the particular occupant newly determined as the recognizing occupant, and 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 2
The combination of Kang and LEE further teaches the simulation apparatus of claim 1. Kang further teaches wherein the program commands, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the simulation apparatus 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.)
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
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).)
Regarding claim 7
The combination of Kang and LEE further teaches the simulation apparatus of claim 1. Kang further teaches wherein the program commands, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the simulation apparatus 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 calculate distances from a current location of the particular occupant to a plurality of exits for escaping from the building, calculate a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the plurality of exits, and select the detour from each moving route based on the calculated distances and each calculated degree.
However, LEE further teaches 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.
calculate a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the plurality of 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.
select the detour from each moving route based on the calculated distances and each calculated degree, (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 calculate distances from a current location of the particular occupant to a plurality of exits for escaping from the building, calculate a degree of risk in the limiting factor present on a moving route from the current location to each of the plurality of exits, and select the detour from each moving route based on the calculated distances and each calculated degree 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
The combination of Kang and LEE further teaches the simulation apparatus of claim 7. Kang does not teach calculate, for the respective exits, weight functions in which the calculated distances and degrees of risk for the respective exits are used as factors, and 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 calculate, for the respective exits, weight functions in which the calculated distances and 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
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 calculate, for the respective exits, weight functions in which the calculated distances and degrees of risk for the respective exits are used as factors, and 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
The combination of Kang and LEE further teaches the simulation apparatus of claim 7. Kang further teaches 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 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, calculate the distances and degrees of risk only for the recognizing occupant every set period, and select the detour from each moving route only for the recognizing occupant.
However, LEE further teaches 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.)
calculate the distances and 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
select the detour from each moving route 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 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, calculate the distances and degrees of risk only for the recognizing occupant every set period, and select the detour from each moving route 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 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 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, only for the recognizing occupant.
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 3.2.1-3.2.2 and fig 6-The fire recognition algorithm is an algorithm that calculates the space where agents can recognize the fire. The space is called a fire recognition field and it is calculated separately. A pedestrian entering the fire recognition field selects a detour. An agent entering the fire recognition field take a detour to an exit, which has the minimum risk factors and the shortest travel distance.)
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, only for the recognizing occupant. (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
5. 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.
6. All claims 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
Prosecution Insights