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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 07/21/2023. Claims 1 – 20 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 200 in FIG 2; 310, 328 and 330 in FIG 3; 524 in FIG 7; 918 in FIG 9; 1051 – 1056 in FIG 10. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 512 in par. 0041 and twice in par. 0042 of the specification as filed. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20150195493 (Childers).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, Childers teaches “An incident response system comprising a computing device comprising one or more memories comprising processor-executable instructions and one or more processors (shown in FIG 1 and 2 with corresponding description) configured to execute the processor-executable instructions and cause the computing device to:
receive an incident response request comprising a primary location and an incident specific location within the primary location (paragraphs 0040 and 0055 – 0063: observers of the event, represented as bystanders 25 ("B") in FIG. 1 will have the ability to communicate with a dispatch system 33 and/or dispatcher 35 to relay information about the event, including locational information. The following dialogue provides a basic remote telephone call scenario in the setting of an elementary school emergency, in which referencing the zones 45 can facilitate an emergency response: Caller 25: "Help! There is a fire at the school!" (Corresponds to claimed “comprising a primary location”) Dispatcher 35: "Where is the fire located?" Caller 25: "In Ms. Childers' classroom." Dispatcher 35: "What zone is Ms. Childers' classroom in?" Caller 25: "Zone 1." (Corresponds to claimed “comprising … an incident specific location within the primary location”));
retrieve a tactical map for the primary location from the one or more memories, the tactical map comprising an aerial image of the primary location and a plurality of zones overlaid on the aerial image (paragraphs 0013 and 0042: Access to the various data associated with each zone and each microzone, which are stored by a zone server, may be accomplished over the network by various user interfaces (e.g., responder interfaces, etc.) as well as via an associated dispatch system. Paragraph 0046: the user interfaces 24,24',34 and/or dispatch system 33 can each utilize a web browser to access and communicate with the zone server 30 via the website. Therefore, “retrieve” is implicit. Paragraph 0075: FIG. 5 depicts a satellite image overlay 51 of a school campus (“an aerial image of the primary location”) which corresponds to four designated zones 45 ("zones 1-4"). In this way, the mapping overlay display features 51 permit display of zones 45 and zone-related information in a superimposed manner relative to mapped features of the local premises, such as satellite photos, street maps, site maps, architectural plans, etc., for the general area, specific premises 20, and/or particular area within the premises 20 (“a plurality of zones overlaid on the aerial image”).), the plurality of zones corresponding to structural areas of one or more buildings at the primary location (paragraph 0072: microzone "A" pertains to a main office area; whereas microzone "C" represents a cafeteria area. Paragraph 0017: Microzones would be small breakdowns within a zone and can include, and is not limited to, certain buildings, houses);
determine one or more zones of the plurality of zones corresponding to the incident specific location (this is shown in FIG 6 and described in paragraph 0076: Once a threat level is determined, the threat level can be displayed via the corresponding threat level indicator 55. By way of example, threat level indicators 55 can assume the relative presentations of a heat index, such that "warm zones" are identified with moderate hazards, "hot zones" are identified with imminent threats, etc. As may be seen, zone 1 is determined to correspond to the specific location of the incident); and
cause a display device to display the tactical map comprising the aerial image overlaid with the plurality of zones and a graphical element accentuating the one or more zones determined to correspond to the incident specific location (this is shown in FIG 6 and described in paragraph 0076: an example of threat level indicators 55 corresponding to respective zones 45, representing “a graphical element accentuating the one or more zones determined to correspond to the incident specific location”.).”
Regarding claim 9, Childers teaches “cause a transceiver to send the tactical map comprising the aerial image overlaid with the plurality of zones and the graphical element accentuating the one or more zones determined to correspond to the incident specific location (this is shown in FIG 6 as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) to a user equipment of a responder (paragraph 0042: The zone server 30 is communicably connectable to the responder interfaces 34. Paragraph 0043: the dispatch system 33 is communicably connected to the plurality of user interfaces (e.g., responder interfaces 34) via the network 27 such that each of the user interfaces may remotely and concurrently communicate with the dispatch system 33. Also paragraph 0046, 0048. Paragraph 0049: the responder interfaces 34 are structured for presenting a variety of visual, audio, and/or audiovisual content to the responders 36. Paragraph 0042: a zone server 30 manages and processes various device data, settings, premises data, user IDs, site specific information, and a variety of zone-related data including maps, plans, threat level status, etc. Since the information presented on the responder interfaces comes from the zone server 30, “a transceiver to send” the map shown in FIG 6 to the responder interface must necessarily be present.).”
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.
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150195493 (Childers) as applied to claims 1, 10 and 17 above, and further in view of US 20200226892 (Coles).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 18, although Childers teaches “the tactical map” and “the aerial image”, Childers does not teach that it “further comprises a plurality of entrances each represented by an indicator positioned on the aerial image at a location of an entrance.”
In similar art, Coles teaches a map (FIG 5 with corresponding description) which “comprises a plurality of entrances each represented by an indicator positioned on the aerial image at a location of an entrance (paragraph 0140: the outdoor map depicts the location of the building within the building premises 504, entrances and exits to the building (disclosed in plural, which means “a plurality of entrances”), etc. Recited by the claim “each represented by an indicator positioned on the aerial image at a location of an entrance” is implicitly present in the disclosure of Coles since depiction of entrances and exits to the building, regardless of the way this depiction is done, meets this limitation.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Coles indication of entrances and exits to the buildings on the outdoor map, in the system of Childers. Doing so would have provided additional information that may be necessary for the first responders to access the premises.
As was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, each microzone in the aerial image in Childers may correspond to an individual building. Therefore, when combined with the disclosure of Coles of showing entrances and exits to the building, when each building corresponds to an individual microzone, this would have resulted in meeting the limitation that the “an indicator positioned on the aerial image”.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 19, Childers in combination with Coles teaches “to graphically accentuate one or more of the indicators for one or more of the plurality of entrances corresponding to the one or more zones determined to correspond to the incident specific location (FIG 9A and paragraph 0186: outdoor map display screen 900 includes an indication of a navigation route 902 from a starting location 904 to a recommended entrance 906 to the building. Here “graphically accentuate one or more of the indicators for one or more of the plurality of entrances” corresponds to the end of the line representing navigational route 902. The server computing device 302 may determine the recommended entrance for the emergency responder by comparing the location of the shooter or of the dangerous event to the locations of each of the entrances (“corresponding to the one or more zones determined to correspond to the incident specific location”). Also FIG 9B with corresponding description in paragraph 0189: The example 3D model 950 includes a depiction of the recommended entrance. Which is thus at least implicitly “graphically accentuated” simply by being the only entrance to the building shown to the responder. FIG 10A and paragraph 0200: The recommended entrance for the emergency responder to use when entering the building 1022 may be indicated in a different color or shading than the other entrances or may be highlighted relative to the other entrances. The recommended entrance 1022 may also be highlighted with an arrow pointing to the recommended entrance, and may include an instruction referring to the entrance, such as “Enter Here!”).”
Claims 6 – 8 and 13 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150195493 (Childers) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 20200226892 (Coles) and US 20220090927 (Shear).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Childers teaches “cause the display device to display a dashboard to a user, the dashboard comprising the tactical map comprising the aerial image of the primary location, the plurality of zones (for explanation, please see the rejection of claim 1 above)…”
Childers does not teach that the dashboard also comprising “a plurality of entrances each represented by an indicator positioned on the aerial image at a location of an entrance; and receive, from an input device, a selection of one of the plurality of zones or one of the plurality of entrances, wherein the selection is made by the input device activating a portion of the tactical map displayed on the display device.”
In similar art, Coles teaches a map (FIG 5 with corresponding description) comprising “a plurality of entrances each represented by an indicator positioned on the aerial image at a location of an entrance (paragraph 0140: the outdoor map depicts the location of the building within the building premises 504, entrances and exits to the building (disclosed in plural, which means “a plurality of entrances”), etc. Recited by the claim “each represented by an indicator positioned on the aerial image at a location of an entrance” is implicitly present in the disclosure of Coles since depiction of entrances and exits to the building, regardless of the way this depiction is done, meets this limitation.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Coles indication of entrances and exits to the buildings on the outdoor map, in the system of Childers. Doing so would have provided additional information that may be necessary for the first responders to access the premises.
As was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, each microzone in the aerial image in Childers may correspond to an individual building. Therefore, when combined with the disclosure of Coles of showing entrances and exits to the building, when each building corresponds to an individual microzone, this would have resulted in meeting the limitation that the “an indicator positioned on the aerial image”.
Further, Shear teaches “receive, from an input device, a selection of one of the plurality of zones (paragraph 0043: a user may be presented with a map showing multiple zones. One particular zone may be selected; or more than one particular zones may be selected, while other zones are unselected. When selected, a particular zone may be visually distinguishable from other zones. The selected zone may be highlighted or shown in a different color shade than other zones.) or one of the plurality of entrances (Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the claim to meet the limitations of the whole claim. In this case the limitation “A” is met.), wherein the selection is made by the input device activating a portion of the tactical map displayed on the display device (paragraph 0122: The user may select one or more zones from the map by clicking/touching the map within the borders of the respective one or more zones. The user may also select multiple zones by clicking/touching and dragging the selection over the zones that they wish to select, much like a highlighter, or drawing a polygon around the zones that they wish to select.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to implement disclosed by Shear capability of a zone selection by using a user interface, in the system of Childers. Doing so would have allowed the user to have more control on the information displayed on the screen and on the way how this information is displayed. Doing so would have also allowed to display additional information for the selected zone, including the estimated number of structures or address points, population and vehicles in the zone currently and at different times (see Shear, paragraph 0121).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Childers in combination with Shear teaches “in response to the selection of one of the plurality of zones or one of the plurality of entrances, cause the display device displaying the tactical map to graphically accentuate the selected one of the plurality of zones (Shear, paragraph 0043: When selected, a particular zone may be visually distinguishable from other zones. The selected zone may be highlighted or shown in a different color shade than other zones.) or the selected one of the plurality of entrances (Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the claim to meet the limitations of the whole claim. In this case the limitation “A” is met.).”
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Childers in combination with Shear teaches “in response to the selection of one of the plurality of zones or one of the plurality of entrances, cause the display device to display information pertaining to the selected one of the plurality of zones (Shear, paragraph 0121: A scenario summary 906 may be displayed for the selected zones. The scenario summary 906 may include the estimated number of structures or address points, population and vehicles in the selected zone. The scenario summary 906 may also include the estimated number of structures or address points, population and vehicles in the selected zone at different times (i.e. weekday, weeknight, weekend day, weekend night or any time in between.).) or the selected one of the plurality of entrances (Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the claim to meet the limitations of the whole claim. In this case the limitation “A” is met.).”
Regarding claim 16, Childers in combination with Shear teaches “selection of one of the plurality of zones (please see explanation in the rejection of claim 13 above)…”
Although Childers in FIG 7 presents “a floor plan of the selected one of the plurality of zones” indicating threat, Childers does not teach that it is done “in response to the” selection of zone.
In similar art, Coles teaches an outdoor map (FIG 5 with corresponding description). Paragraph 0143: The outdoor map display screen 500 includes a user control 506 for presenting the outdoor map display 500 (e.g., by selecting the “Full Property” or “Outside” tabs) or an indoor map display (e.g., by selecting the “Inside” tab) depicting the interior of the building.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Coles capability of switching displaying between outdoor and indoor maps, in the system of Childers. Doing so would have allowed to easily switch between different level of details while presenting different type of maps as well as allow the responders to pinpoint exact location of the threat to a specific area within the building.
As was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, in Childers, a structure or a building may correspond to a single microzone. Selection of a microzone in general is covered by Childers and similar selection by using user interface is also covered by Shear. Therefore, in the system of combined Childers, Coles and Shear’s disclosures, it would have been obvious to present a user interface, such as disclosed by Coles in FIG 5 – 6 and including a user control 506, that upon selection or highlighting of a particular microzone corresponding to a structure or a building, to allow switching from the larger area satellite map with the microzone selected (as in Childers) or large area outdoor map (as in Coles), to an indoor map representing a floor plan of the building corresponding to the selected microzone. Doing so would have provided the capability of quickly switching between different levels of presentation.
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150195493 (Childers) in view of US 20200226892 (Coles) as applied to claims 2 and 18 above, and further in view of one or more of (US 20200193046 (Evans) and/or US 11030560 (Brandt)) and alternatively in additional view of JP 2005227956 (Okada) (references are given according to English translation).
Regarding claims 4 and 20, Childers teaches “cause the display device to display a dashboard to a user, the dashboard comprising the tactical map (this is disclosed by Childers in FIG 5A, 5B and 6 with corresponding description)…”
“…cause the display device displaying the tactical map to graphically accentuate the selected one of the plurality of zones (paragraph 0069: a particular color code 46 is enabled for "zone 1" to convey additional information. Such a scheme might indicate that "zone 1" should be avoided while all other zones are still safe to occupy. In this example, “graphically accentuate the selected one of the plurality of zones” which is zone 1. In FIG 6, zone 1 is selected to be “graphically accentuate[d]” with a threat level indicator 55 to convey the information that there is a threat) or the selected one of the plurality of entrances (Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the claim to meet the limitations of the whole claim. In this case the limitation “A” is met.).”
Childers does not teach that the dashboard to comprise “a first selectable menu providing a listing of the plurality of zones, and a second selectable menu providing a listing of the plurality of entrances, receive, from an input device, a selection of one of the plurality of zones or a selection of one of the plurality of entrances.”
Evans teaches “a first selectable menu providing a listing of the plurality of zones”, “receive, from an input device, a selection of one of the plurality of zones (FIG 61 and 62 with corresponding description. Paragraph 0150: FIG. 61 illustrates a map navigator or map page 6100 (“display a dashboard to a user, the dashboard comprising the tactical map”) triggered by clicking on the maps button 6017 of dashboard 6000. The map navigator may be used to provide information at a campus level, at a building level, at a floor level, and at a room level. Paragraph 0153: the map graphic 6130 is a map level image of a campus. The campus includes several areas including buildings, a soccer field, and others. Paragraph 0155: in a map displaying a plurality of buildings or areas, each building having one or more floor plans, there may be a display hierarchy. Paragraph 0156: Selecting an area, such as the HS North building 6133, launches a menu 6137 which is an option Zoom In to Building. Selecting the Zoom In to Building option launches a drill down menu 6139 showing the floors of the building. Selecting one of the floors on the drill down menu 6139 will present a floor plan level map of the selected floor, shown in FIG. 62. Therefore, this Zoom In to Building option represents “a first selectable menu providing a listing of the plurality of zones”, each zone being an individual floor of the building, and clicking on any of the floor options represents “receive, from an input device, a selection of one of the plurality of zones”).”
Additionally or alternatively, Brandt also teaches “a first selectable menu providing a listing of the plurality of zones”, “receive, from an input device, a selection of one of the plurality of zones (FIG 4 with corresponding description. Col. 8 lines 7 – 9: Under the Regions tab 314, multiple areas 400a-400n are available for selection. Col. 8 lines 21 – 22: The current selection is area 400l, which is Smith County. Under the current selection of area 400l. Col. 8 lines 31 – 32: The current selection of area 400l is reflected in region 334 of the screen 300 with map 404 showing the selected area. Therefore, this Regions tab 314 represents “a first selectable menu providing a listing of the plurality of zones”, and clicking on any of these zones represents “receive, from an input device, a selection of one of the plurality of zones”).”
Therefore, since Childers does not disclose much information on how the specific zone gets selected, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Evans and/or Brandt selection method by utilizing selectable items on the dashboard, in the system of Childers simply to fill in where Childers is silent with predictable results, the results being the capability of selecting a particular zone of interest, and since according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Further, Coles in FIG 6A and paragraph 0148 teaches an example indoor map display screen 610 of the administrator application. The indoor map display screen 610 may include a floor layout indicating each area of the floor, such as rooms, hallways, auditoriums, cafeterias, etc. The indoor map display screen 610 may also indicate each of the exits 612 from the building or stairwells and exits from each of the rooms 614. The indoor map display screen 610 may indicate whether each door on the floor is locked or unlocked. The administrator application may include user controls for automatically locking and unlocking doors and for selecting which doors to lock and unlock (corresponds to presenting “a second selectable menu providing a … plurality of entrances” and “receive, from an input device” “a selection of one of the plurality of entrances.”). Additionally, the administrator application may present notifications when doors are locked and unlocked including the location of each door which is locked or unlocked. Although no “listing” is explicitly disclosed with respect to plurality of the doors, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to present a selectable listing of the doors as part of the user controls. Doing so would have simply filled in where Coles is silent and provided a way for the user to select a specific door.
Additionally or alternatively, Okada in paragraph 0014 teaches selecting a specific door from a list of doors or a graphical floor plan of the site to perform unlocking function. This corresponds to presenting “a second selectable menu providing a listing of the plurality of entrances, receive, from an input device” “a selection of one of the plurality of entrances.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Coles and/or Okada the capability of selection of a particular door using user interface, in the system of Childers. Doing so would have allowed remote locking and unlocking of the selected doors (see Coles, paragraph 0148 and/or Okada, paragraph 0014).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20150195493 (Childers) in view of US 20200226892 (Coles), US 20200193046 (Evans) and alternatively in additional view of (JP 2005227956 (Okada).
Regarding claim 5, Childers does not teach “in response to receiving the selection of one of the plurality of zones, filter the second selectable menu to list one or more of the plurality of entrances corresponding to the selected one of the plurality of zones.” However, in the system of Childers in combination with Coles, Evans or alternatively in additional view of Okada, this feature is either implicit or it would have been obvious to implement it. Indeed, both Okada and Coles disclose or fairly suggest presenting a list of doors to be locked or unlocked for a specific floor plan visible on the display screen. Therefore, when one of the zones representing a floor plan of a particular floor is selected (“receiving the selection of one of the plurality of zones”), according to the disclosure of Evans, the listing of the doors would include the doors only for the specific floor that is visible on the display screen (“filter the second selectable menu to list one or more of the plurality of entrances corresponding to the selected one of the plurality of zones.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648