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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant action is a non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are pending and rejected.
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 they are directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a Method (claim 1) , system (claim 10) , and computer medium (claim 16).
Independent claim 1 has been identified as the exemplary claim for analysis.
Claims 1-20 are directed to statutory classes of invention (Step 1 Yes)
Claim 1 recites a method for detecting emergency conditions within structures and initiating remediation.
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity which is a fundamental economic practice.
The abstract limitations include
detecting, by …, an emergency condition within a structure; determining, by the …, a set of remediation services corresponding to the structure based upon the emergency condition; identifying, by the …, one or more remediation service providers to perform the set of remediation services; generating, by the … , a remediation alert signal that includes contact information corresponding to at least one of the one or more remediation service providers; and transmitting, by …, the remediation alert signal to a user … of a user associated with the structure.
If a claim under it’s broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice then it falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claim recites an abstract idea.
Here the non-abstract ideas include “one or more processors” and “computing device of the user”
Claim 1 is applying generic computing components to the recited abstract limitations. The recitation of a generic computing components in a claim does not necessarily preclude that claim from reciting an abstract idea.
Claims 10, 16 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1.
(Step 2A Prong 1 Yes) the claims recite an abstract idea
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of “one or more processors” and “computing device of the user”, Claim 3 adds a device within the structure, claim 4, a smart lock, home security system or water flow sensor, claim 6, a plurality of devices, claim 9 a VR environment, Claims 12, 14, 18 are similar to 3,4 and 6.
The computer hardware is recited at a high level of generality, (generic processor performing generic computing function). Such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing computer component. According, there additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are at a high level of generality. There claims 1, 10,16 are directed to an abstract directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A Prong 2 ) The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they don’t not add significantly more to than the exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
See applicant specification 0028, discuses an inventive concept of
“training water level signal data, usage data, sensor data, environmental data, contractor data, geolocation data) to output the user/owner-specific conditions and recommendations configured to improve the respective user/owner's maintenance and emergency preparedness efforts related to a structure and associated devices.”
However, the spec is generally directed to generic computing elements. Per MPEP 2106.05 (f) the use of generic computer as a tool is not significantly more. Thus claims 1, 10 and 16 directed to an abstract idea and thus correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity and are thus abstract for the reasons presented above. They are not integrated into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Step 2B No the claims do not provide significantly more.
The dependent claims 2-9,11-15 and 17-20 are rejected because they do not add additional elements except those noted above that would amount to significantly more or in ordered combination. Thus the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1-20 are thus not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5,10-13,16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication to Horton 20160261425
As per claim 1, Horton discloses;
detecting, by one or more processors,
an emergency condition
within a structure; determining, by the one or more processors,
Horton(0137, emergency such as fire)
a set of remediation services
corresponding to the structure based upon the emergency condition;
Horton(0651)
identifying, by the one or more processors, one or more remediation service providers to perform the set of remediation services; generating, by the one or more processors,
Horton(0651)
a remediation alert signal that includes contact information corresponding to at least one of the one or more remediation service providers; and transmitting, by the one or more processors,
Horton(0650 alert) Pratt (Mitigation action)
the remediation alert signal to a user computing device of a user associated with the structure.
Horton(0149, can report for remediation, police or emergency response and 0468 the user can be alerted too)
Claims 10, 16 are similar to claim 1.
As per claim 2 Horton discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:prior to detecting the emergency condition, detecting, by the one or more processors,
a catastrophic event approaching the structure; generating, by the one or more processors, a damage mitigation recommendation based upon the catastrophic event and the structure; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the damage mitigation recommendation to the user computing device.
Horton(0390 weather conditions, 0389 and weather forecast, fig. 4)
Claims 11, 17 are similar to claim 2.
As per claim 3 Horton discloses;
The computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising:
responsive to detecting the catastrophic event,
determining, by the one or more processors,
whether or not the structure is occupied based upon signal data from one or more devices associated with the structure;
and responsive to determining that the structure is not occupied,
transmitting, by the one or more processors, a signal to a device within the structure to perform a preventative action corresponding to the catastrophic event.
Horton (0080 occupied structure, detection)
As per claim 4 Horton discloses;
The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the one or more devices associated with the structure include at least one of: (i) a smart lock, (ii) a home security system, or (iii) a water flow sensor. Horton (0056 smart lock)
12 and 18 are similar to claims 3 plus claim 4
As per claim 5, Horton discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the set of remediation services further comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, a remediation action based upon the emergency condition, the remediation action being associated with a device within the structure; and transmitting, by the one or more processors, a signal to the device to perform the remediation action.
Horton (0652 notify the authorities)
Claims 13 and 19 are similar to claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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)s 6-9, 14-15,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication to Horton 20160261425 in view of US Patent Publication 20230116513 to Pratt.
As per claim 6, Horton discloses detecting a forecasted weather event. (fig 4. ) or other events 0515-516. Or further evacuate the premises 0651. However, Horton does not explicitly disclose what Pratt teaches which is mitigation based on the weather.
Pratt(0025, mitigation, move to safe ground)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the event approaching disclosure of Horton with the mitigation teaching of Pratt for the motivation of providing better than “inadequate mitigation on a collective basis…” (0001)
Claim 14 is similar to claim 6
As per claim 7 Horton discloses;
the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the evacuation recommendation includes one or more recommended evacuation routes and one or more safe areas. (0651)
As per claim 8 Horton discloses; detecting emergency conditions. (0515), However, Pratt teaches;
a catastrophic event approaching the structure; determining, by the one or more processors, an emergency condition likelihood value based upon the catastrophic event; generating, by the one or more processors, an emergency condition alert based upon the emergency condition likelihood value; and causing, by the one or more processors, the emergency condition alert to be displayed to the user.
Pratt(a likelihood is essentially a prediction based on a forecast, 0045, ie if one predicts a weather concern, its never 100%, it’s a prediction which has a accuracy, see also 0069 for confidence score)
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the event approaching disclosure of Horton with the mitigation teaching of Pratt for the motivation of providing better than “inadequate mitigation on a collective basis…” (0001)
Claims 15 and 20 are similar to claim 8.
As per claim 9 Horton does not explicitly disclose what Pratt teaches; The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: generating, by the one or more processors, a virtual representation of the emergency condition within a virtual reality (VR) environment; and causing, by the one or more processors, the virtual representation of the emergency condition to be displayed to the user while the user is viewing the VR environment.
Pratt(0036 Virtual reality) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the event approaching disclosure of Horton with the mitigation teaching of Pratt for the motivation of providing better than “inadequate mitigation on a collective basis…” (0001)
Conclusion
Evaluation of Smart Home Systems and Novel UV-Oriented Solution for Integration, Resilience, Inclusiveness & Sustainability, IEEE 2022
Threat Modeling and Security Issues for the Internet of Things, IEEE 2019
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693