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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 and 11-20 remain pending in the present application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection set forth previously. Claim 10 has been cancelled.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites, “determine whether an event has been detected via an event device in the facility from the building system information;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes determining whether an event has occurred based upon received information which is a task that can reasonably be done in the human mind and thus falls within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 further includes the limitations of, “generate an event response analysis for different sub-groups of emergency service personnel using at least one of the building system information based on the detected event and the emergency services information;” and “transmit a portion of the event response analysis to the mobile device of at least one of the different sub-groups of emergency services personnel based on a permission level of an identity associated with a user of the mobile device.”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, includes limitations of merely generating and transmitting data in response to the determination which just merely applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Claim 1 additionally includes the limitation of, “receive building system information from a building management system of a facility and emergency services information from at least one of a mobile device and a remote computing device;”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds limitations which add insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, the limitations of, “a processor”, “a computing device”, and “a memory”, as generally recited just represent merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering building system data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claims 11 and 16 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as provided above.
Claim 16 includes the additional limitation of displaying event response analysis, however, under Step 2A Prong Two, simply displaying data falls within the guidelines of just merely applying the use of the judicial exception as detailed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 2-9, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea without significantly more. For instance, claims 6-7, 15, and 19-20, each include limitations of making determinations based upon received data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations which can all reasonably be performed using the human mind given the respective information and thus fall within the, “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 2-5, 15, and 17-18, each include limitations of generating various types of data that can be transmitted to a device in response to analysis of the data, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, all include limitations which just simply apply the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2016.05(f)). Further, claims 10 and 12, each include limitations of data transfer, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just simply add limitations which adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2016.05(g)). Finally, claims 2-5, 8-9, and 13-14, each include limitations describing various types of data being generated based upon the analysis or disclose various functionality provided such as camera access, which when analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, just simply links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or problem solving area (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering building system data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
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.
Claims 1-9, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molloy et al. (US PGPUB 20180365942) in view of Alon et al. (US PGPUB 20160065658).
Regarding Claims 1, 11, and 16; Molloy teaches; A computing device for event system integration for event response, comprising: (Molloy; at least paragraph [0062]; disclose a search assistance server for detecting emergency events and generating instructions to help guide an individual or responder)
a memory; and (Molloy; at least paragraphs [0047]-[0048])
a processor configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory to: (Molloy; at least paragraphs [0047]-[0048])
receive building system information from a building management system of a facility and (Molloy; at least paragraphs [0061]-[0062]; disclose wherein the search assistance server receives building information from a plurality of sensors)
emergency services information from at least one of a mobile device and a remote computing device; (Molloy; at least paragraph [0096]; disclose wherein the server gathers GPS coordinates from a first responders user device)
determine whether an event has been detected via an event device in the facility from the building system information; (Molloy; at least paragraph [0062]; discloser wherein the server detects an occurrence of an emergency event based on the received building data from the plurality of sensors)
generate an event response analysis for different sub-groups of emergency services personnel using at least one of the building system information based on the detected event and the emergency services information; and transmit a portion of the event response analysis to the mobile device of at least one of the different sub-groups of emergency services personnel based on a permission level of an identify associated with a user of the mobile device. (Molloy; at least paragraph [0062]; disclose wherein the system analyzes the occurrence of the event and based on the received information is capable of transmitting instructions, such as a map, to a user’s device providing detailed instructions on how to escape the current situation).
Molly appears to be silent on; generate an event response analysis for different sub-groups of emergency services personnel using at least one of the building system information based on the detected event and the emergency services information;
and transmit a portion of the event response analysis to the mobile device of at least one of the different sub-groups of emergency services personnel based on a permission level of an identify associated with a user of the mobile device.
However, Alon teaches; generate an event response analysis for different sub-groups of emergency services personnel using at least one of the building system information based on the detected event and the emergency services information; (Alon; at least Fig. 24; paragraphs [0180]-[0183]; disclose an event response system and method which includes generating a plurality of different response analysis instructions for different personnel (i.e. in the present application, an active shooter event triggers different instructions for guards nearest the event, guard captains, staff, etc.))
and transmit a portion of the event response analysis to the mobile device of at least one of the different sub-groups of emergency services personnel based on a permission level of an identify associated with a user of the mobile device. (Alon; at least Fig. 24; paragraphs [0180]-[0183]; disclose wherein the system includes tracking each individuals role (i.e. wherein the role is representative of a “permission level” in the present scenario) which dictates what portion of instructions they will receive (i.e. an armed guard with priority level 1 receives a different set of instructions than a store staff with a role priority of 4), and wherein the system includes sending the specified portions to the various roles in order to respond to a detected event).
Molloy and Alon are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of first responder communication systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of providing custom event response analysis instructions as taught by Alon with the known system of a first responder monitoring and communication system as taught by Molloy in order to provide a method for providing detailed instructions to the appropriate resources such that the event can be handled as taught by Alon (paragraph [0183]).
Regarding Claim 2; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The computing device of claim 1, wherein generating the event response analysis includes generating an event map analysis that is associated with the event for the facility using the building system information. (Molloy; at least paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claim 3; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The computing device of claim 1, wherein generating the event response analysis includes generating a physiological data analysis for the user of the mobile device using the emergency services information, wherein the user is an emergency service person responding to the event. (Molloy; at least paragraph [0061] and [0096]).
Regarding Claim 4; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The computing device of claim 1, wherein generating the event response analysis includes generating an impact detection analysis for the user of the mobile device using the emergency services information in response to the mobile device detecting an impact, wherein the user is an emergency service person responding to the event. (Molloy; at least paragraphs [0085] and [0096]).
Regarding Claim 5; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The computing device of claim 1, wherein generating the event response analysis includes generating navigation information associated with the facility using at least one of the building system information and the emergency services information. (Molloy; at least paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claim 6; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The computing device of claim 1, wherein: the mobile device is one of a plurality of mobile devices each associated with an emergency service person responding to the event; the computing device is configured to receive the emergency services information from the plurality of mobile devices; and generating the event response analysis includes determining a count of mobile devices of the plurality of mobile devices at the facility and a location of each of the plurality of mobile devices at the facility. (Molloy; at least Claim 8; paragraph [0096]).
Regarding Claim 7; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The computing device of claim 1, wherein generating the event response analysis includes determining a criticality of a space in the facility using the building system information and the emergency services information from the mobile device for evacuation determination. (Molloy; at least paragraphs [0063] and [0081]).
Regarding Claim 8; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The computing device of claim 1, wherein generating the event response analysis includes providing a connection to a public address/voice alarm (PA/VA) system of the facility for the mobile device. (Molloy; at least paragraph [0097]).
Regarding Claim 9; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The computing device of claim 1, wherein generating the event response analysis includes providing a connection to a camera feed to the facility. (Molloy; at least paragraph [0081]).
Regarding Claim 12; the combination of Molloy and Alon teach; The computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the non-transitory computer readable instructions are executable by the processor to: transmit the portion of the event response analysis to of the plurality of mobile devices of a first sub-group among the different sub-groups based on identities associated with users of the first sub-group having a first permission level; and transmit another portion of the event response analysis to the plurality of mobile devices of a second sub-group among the different sub-groups based on identities associated with users of the second sub-group having a second permission level, wherein the second permission level is different from the first permission level. (Alon; at least Fig. 24; paragraphs [0180]-[0183]).
Regarding Claim 14; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the event response analysis includes building plans for the facility from the building system information. (Molloy; at least paragraph [0093]).
Regarding Claim 15; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the non-transitory computer readable instructions are executable by the processor to: determine whether the event has been detected by verifying, in response to a signal being received, an alarm state of the event device; and generate the event response analysis in response to the alarm state being verified. (Molloy; at least paragraph [0094]).
Regarding Claim 17; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The system of claim 16, wherein the computing device is configured to generate the event response analysis by generating navigation information including a route for the mobile device from a location of the mobile device to a location of the facility. (Molloy; at least paragraph [0062]).
Regarding Claim 18; the combination of Molly and Alon teach; The system of claim 16, wherein the computing device is configured to: generate the event response analysis by generating navigation information including a path through the facility for the mobile device from a location of the mobile device to a location of the event in the facility using the building system information and the emergency services information from the mobile device; and generate the path that avoids areas of the facility having an environmental characteristic that exceeds a threshold amount using the building system information. (Molloy; at least paragraph [0081]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molloy et al. (US PGPUB 20180365942) Molloy et al. (US PGPUB 20180365942) in view of Alon et al. (US PGPUB 20160065658) in further view of Funk et al. (US PGPUB 20080077326).
Regarding Claim 13; Molloy and Alon appears to be silent on; The computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the event response analysis includes contact information associated with each mobile device of the plurality of mobile devices.
However, Funk teaches; The computer readable medium of claim 11, wherein the event response analysis includes contact information associated with each mobile device of the plurality of mobile devices. (Funk; at least paragraphs [0017]-[0018]; disclose a first responder communication system and method in which a plurality of first responders each have an individual communication unit that is monitored by an incident command center which includes contact information for each responder and is able to issue individual communications to each to warn of hazards in their area).
Molloy, Alon, and Funk are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of first responder communication systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of having contact information for each responder as taught by Funk with the known system of a first responder monitoring and communication system as taught by Molloy and Alon in order to provide a method for providing warnings to first responders such as to evacuate an area thus improving a responders safety as taught by Funk (paragraph [0062]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molloy et al. (US PGPUB 20180365942) in view of Alon et al. (US PGPUB 20160065658) in further view of Knas et al. (US Patent 9,741,237).
Regarding Claim 19; Molloy and Alon appears to be silent on; The system of claim 16, wherein the mobile device is configured to: wirelessly connect to a proximate event device in the facility; and determine whether the proximate event device is the event device that detected the event.
However, Knas teaches; The system of claim 16, wherein the mobile device is configured to: wirelessly connect to a proximate event device in the facility; and determine whether the proximate event device is the event device that detected the event. (Knas; at least column 1, lines 45-67; column 2, lines 1-7; column 4, lines 36-59; disclose a system and method for providing an alert and location of a person trapped in a building to a first responder based on alert/location information sent from their target phone, wherein further, the mobile device of the responder is configured to send a data packet to proximate devices and can determine the location of the target phone and person).
Molloy, Alon, and Knas are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor or similar problem solving area, of first responder communication systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the disclosed invention to have incorporated the known method of determining the location of the device that initiates the alert as taught by Knas with the known system of a first responder monitoring and communication system as taught by Molloy in order to provide a method for locating individuals without the need for a plurality of transmitters, thus saving costs and reducing complexity as taught by Knas (column 4, lines 55-59).
Regarding Claim 20; the combination of Molloy, Alon, and Knas teach; The system of claim 19, wherein: in response to the proximate event device not being the event device that detected the event, determine: a direction of the event device that detected the event; and a distance to the event device that detected the event from the proximate event device; and display the direction and the distance via the user interface. (Knas; at least column 3, lines 25-33; column 19, lines 23-67; disclose wherein the system and method include displaying a map to show first responders the direction and distance to a receiving device held by a person in need of help, and further, if the responders take a wrong direction, providing notifications in order to redirect them to the correct direction).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-14, filed 1/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-9, 11, and 14-18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and claims 10 and 12 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 Molloy et al. (US PGPUB 20180365942) in view of Alon et al. (US PGPUB 20160065658).
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, the applicant argues that the present application provides an improvement to the particular technological area, as generating event response analysis for different sub-groups allows for a faster and safer event response. Though this might be true, the claims themselves do not reflect in great enough detail as to how this would be achieved other than generally stating different analysis is sent to differing personnel. As such, the claims taken as a whole in their current form merely represent determining an event has been detected (representative of an abstract idea with emphasis on a Mental Process), generating information for different group and sending the information to mobile devices, which managing data and sending it to be displayed just merely applies the use of the judicial exception as discussed:
“By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miasnik et al. (US PGPUB 20140282934): disclose a crisis management system and method for tracking personnel and providing guidance and messaging based on the tracked information.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W CARTER whose telephone number is (469)295-9262. The examiner can normally be reached 9-6:30.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571) 272-2748. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER W CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights