DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 16 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-12, filed 16 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and similar claims in substance under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yoon et al. (US 2012/0215383 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-14 and 19 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 1, 9, and 19 describe configuration of an assistance agent to generate executable instructions. The specification describes a physical agent that can provide instructions to robots; however, the claimed assistance agent is augmented reality-based. Nothing in the specification describes configuration of an augmented-reality based assistance agent to generate any sort of instructions to be performed by one or more autonomous robots. Since claim 1 does not comply with the written description requirement, dependent claims 2-14 also do not comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the plurality of executable instructions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0376792 A1) in view of Boss et al. (US 10,896,598 B1) and further in view of Yoon et al. (US 2012/0215383 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a computer-implemented method for generating virtual assistance, the method comprising: receiving, by a computing device (Figures 1 and 2, computer system), a plurality of sensor data associated with a surveillance system; (Paragraph 0026 and 0032, senor information for a population at an event and receiving video/audio analytics during an emergency at the event) generating, by the computing device, a virtual environment based on an analysis of the plurality of sensor data; (Paragraphs 0027 and 0035, determining and updating of escape routes where avatars can be projected using augmented reality based on visual feedback and tracking). Chen does not clearly disclose generating, by the computing device, a prediction of an incident derived from a machine learning model based on the analysis. Boss discloses a machine learning classifier model that predicts and generates an indication of a potential emergency based on input images and video (Column 5, lines 35-52). Boss’ machine learning classifier model that predicts and generates an indication of a potential emergency based on input images and video would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the generation of augmented reality projections for an emergency based on visual feedback of Chen and the results would have been predictable in the generation of augmented reality projections for a potential emergency using predictions from a machine learning classifier model that receives visual feedback inputs. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Chen in view of Boss further discloses and inserting, by the computing device, an augmented reality-based assistance agent associated with an authority communicatively coupled to the surveillance system into the virtual environment to provide a mitigating action to the incident (Chen, paragraph 0038, avatars of firemen, policemen, and medics can be generated for directing emergency response units during a real or potential emergency that could be predicted by the model, Boss, column 5, lines 35-52).
Chen in view of Boss does not clearly disclose wherein the assistance agent is configured to generate a plurality of executable instructions designed to be performed by one or more autonomous robots associated with the incident. Yoon discloses a security information analysis unit that can analyze security information for abnormal situations to generate commands for robots to perform various functions based on the security information (Paragraph 0040). Yoon’s technique of generating commands for robots to perform various functions based on abnormal situations in analyzed security information would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the determination of real or potential emergencies of Chen in view of Boss and the results would have been predictable in the generation of commands for robots to perform various functions based on the determination of real or potential emergencies. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses wherein the assistance agent is a law officer or medical professional configured to be virtually integrated into the virtual environment via a volumetric display (Paragraph 0038, avatars of policemen and medics are viewable in augmented reality environment).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses wherein generating the virtual environment comprises: determining, by the computing device, a target location in the virtual environment to insert the assistance agent based on a location identifier derived from the plurality of sensor data (Paragraph 0038, generation of avatars based on the source of emergency and escape paths).
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses wherein the analysis of the plurality of sensor data comprises: determining, by the computing device, one or more of a traffic accident, an infraction, a high probability of accident, and a presence of required assistance; (Paragraph 0041, real time event analysis of the emergency) wherein the determination is based on a plurality of rules defined by a law enforcement entity (Paragraphs 0035-0036, in the event of a fire, changes such as spreading can occur and firemen avatars can be tuned to lead towards the fire emergency).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses displaying, by the computing device, the virtual environment comprising the assistance agent to one or more augmented reality systems associated with pedestrians and drivers (Paragraph 0038, avatars are visible to the population on the escape route).
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses modifying, by the computing device, the target location in the virtual environment to insert the assistance agent based on receiving and analyzing contextual information (Paragraphs 0035-0036, tuning of avatars and their display on routes based on the changes of the emergency).
Regarding claim 9, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 10, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claims 11 and 13, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 12, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 14, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 7 is applied.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0376792 A1) in view of Boss et al. (US 10,896,598 B1).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses a computer system for generating virtual assistance, the computer system comprising: one or more processors; (Paragraph 0022, processors) one or more computer-readable memories; (Paragraph 0023, memories) program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories for execution by at least one of the one or more processors (Paragraph 0023, stored program), the programming instructions comprising: program instructions to receive a plurality of sensor data associated with a surveillance system; (Paragraph 0026 and 0032, senor information for a population at an event and receiving video/audio analytics during an emergency at the event) program instructions to generate a virtual environment based on an analysis of the plurality of sensor data; (Paragraphs 0027 and 0035, determining and updating of escape routes where avatars can be projected using augmented reality based on visual feedback and tracking). Chen does not clearly disclose program instructions to generate a prediction of an incident derived from a machine learning model based on the analysis. Boss discloses a machine learning classifier model that predicts and generates an indication of a potential emergency based on input images and video (Column 5, lines 35-52). Boss’ machine learning classifier model that predicts and generates an indication of a potential emergency based on input images and video would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the generation of augmented reality projections for an emergency based on visual feedback of Chen and the results would have been predictable in the generation of augmented reality projections for a potential emergency using predictions from a machine learning classifier model that receives visual feedback inputs. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Chen in view of Boss further discloses program instructions to insert an augmented reality-based assistance agent associated with an authority communicatively coupled to the surveillance system into the virtual environment to provide a mitigating action to the incident (Chen, paragraph 0038, avatars of firemen, policemen, and medics can be generated for directing emergency response units during a real or potential emergency that could be predicted by the model, Boss, column 5, lines 35-52).
Regarding claim 16, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 6 is applied.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0376792 A1) in view of Boss et al. (US 10,869,598 B1) in view of Yoon et al. (US 2012/0215383 A1) and further in view of Tatrai et al. (US 2022/0254161 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Chen in view of Boss and further in view of Yoon discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Chen in view of Boss and further in view of Yoon does not clearly disclose wherein the plurality of sensor data is derived from at least one closed circuit TV system (CCTV) comprising one or more live video feeds associated with volumetric data. Tatrai discloses crowd measurement and management systems that can receive images from closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras for controlling crowd flow (Paragraph 0151). Chen in view of Boss and further in view of Yoon discloses steps for directing a population along escape routes using various sensor devices which differed from the claimed process by the substitution of sensor data is derived from at least one closed circuit TV system (CCTV) comprising one or more live video feeds associated with volumetric data. Tatrai discloses the substituted step of using closed circuit TV system (CCTV) that can be used for crowd flow control. As a result, both functions were known in the art to use sensor information for managing crowd flow. Chen in view of Boss and further in view of Yoon’s various sensors could have been substituted with Tatrai’s CCTV for controlling crowd flow and the results would have been predictable, resulting in managing crowds along escape routes using CCTV information. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0376792 A1) in view of Boss et al. (US 10,869,598 B1) and further in view of Tatrai et al. (US 2022/0254161 A1).
Regarding claim 17, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not clearly disclose the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the assistance agent is configured to generate the plurality of executable instructions designed to be performed by one or more autonomous robots associated with one or more of the traffic accident, the infraction, the high probability of accident, and the presence of required assistance; wherein the plurality of executable instructions are generated based on one or more gestures associated with the law enforcement entity.
Regarding claim 19, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 8 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Laluque et al. (US 2023/0205204 A1) discloses delivery of emergency piloting commands for a robot aircraft.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619