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 / Status of the Claims
Applicant is thanked for their 6/3/26 response to the Office Action dated 3/6/26. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-11, 13, 15 and 19-21 are amended.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
It appears the recitation of “the zone” in the last line of claim 3 should be underlined because it was not included in the last claim set. Similarly, it appears the recitation of “the threat” in line 6 of claim 5 should be underlined because it was not included in the last claim set. For the purposes of substantiative examination, both “the zone” in claim 3 and “the threat” in claim 5 are treated as new limitations.
Response to Remarks
Applicant’s arguments on Pg. 8 of the Remarks with respect to the claim interpretation of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim interpretation has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pg. 10, Applicant states Khire does not disclose the use of "at least one deployable sensor mounted on a mobile platform". Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the prior art rejections to claims 1, 11, and 21.
On pg. 10, Applicant states Khire does not disclose the use of "a preferred evacuation path that minimizes a total risk measure value computed by weighting one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level". Examiner respectfully disagrees. See prior art rejections to claims 1, 11, and 21.
On pg. 10, Applicant states Khire does not disclose the iterative, two-step control regime recited in the amended independent claims, in which a first control instruction is issued based on then-current occupancy information and a preferred evacuation path, and then, after that first control instruction has been sent, the occupancy information is re-calculated based on additional sensor data and, in response to the updated occupancy information indicating an absence of occupants from a zone associated with the threat, a second, different and more aggressive control instruction is sent to the threat mitigator. Examiner respectfully disagrees. See prior art rejections to claims 1, 11, and 21.
Applicant’s remarks on pg. 10 that Nohara does not disclose a deployable sensor mounted on a mobile platform, calculating occupancy information including an occupant mobility level, determining a preferred evacuation path that minimizes a total risk measure value, or the iterative two-step control regime triggered by a re-calculation indicating an absence of occupants in the threat zone are moot because Nohara is not relied upon to teach these limitations.
Applicant’s remarks on pgs. 10-11 that Perry does not disclose a deployable mobile-platform sensor, a mobility-level-weighted preferred evacuation path, or a sequence in which, after a first control instruction has been sent to a threat mitigator based on the occupancy information and a preferred evacuation path, a re-calculation of the occupancy information indicating absence of occupants from a threat zone triggers a second, different, more aggressive control instruction to the threat mitigator are moot because Perry is not relied upon to teach these limitations.
Applicant’s remarks on pg. 11 that Sloo does not disclose the deficiencies of Khire identified above with respect to amended claim 1 and 21 are moot because Sloo is not relied upon to teach those limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3 and 13 on pg. 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On pg. 12, Applicant states Khire does not disclose “the exit path is selected from among a plurality of candidate egress paths by evaluating, for each candidate egress path, a pathway risk measure that accounts for occupant mobility level and a predicted exposure duration to the threat". Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the prior art rejections to claims 5 and 15.
On pg. 13, Applicant states Khire does not disclose “specific stored building plan content now recited in amended claims 10 and 20, nor does Khire disclose computing a total risk measure value by weighting per floor time and selecting the exit path to minimize that total risk measure value". Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the prior art rejections to claims 10 and 20. However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, an alternative 103 rejection is made in view of Takeda et al. (WO 2017017804 A1, hereafter Takeda).
On pg. 13, Applicant states Khire does not disclose “calculating the occupancy information comprises calculating at least an occupant mobility level and at least one of an occupant count, an occupant location, or an occupant movement pattern". Examiner respectfully disagrees. See the prior art rejections to claims 9 and 19.
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.
Claims 1-21 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.
Regarding claim 1, the preferred evacuation path that minimizes a risk measure value is claimed to be “computed by weighting one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level” (lines 8-10). However, using the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level, to compute the total risk measure value isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. Instead, the PGPUB discloses “For example, in some aspects, a risk measure value may be defined for each floor of a building based on factors such as the number of people in that floor, the monetary or non-monetary value of assets/property on that floor (e.g., sensitive documents), to what extent the property on that floor is flammable or fire-retardant, etc. In these aspects, the occupancy flow planner 114 may define a total risk measure value by multiplying the time (in minutes) that a last evacuee spent at each floor in the building by the risk measure value of that floor and summing over all floors. The occupancy flow planner 114 may then determine a preferred evacuation path that minimizes the total risk measure value.” (Par. 0033). The risk measure value examples do not include occupancy information in general, nor the occupant mobility level in particular.
In addition, the occupancy information is connected to control of the HVAC in general, not to a preferred evacuation path that minimizes a risk measure value: “the controller 110 may be configured to analyze parameters provided by the occupancy sensors 102 to calculate the occupancy information. For example, the controller 110 may calculate one or more of: an occupant count, an occupant location, an occupant movement pattern, or an occupant mobility level…In some aspects, the controller 110 may calculate occupancy information for each zone and/or for the entire building. If the entire building is empty, then the controller 110 may determine to shut off the HVAC or reverse it in the entire building.” (Par. 0044). Shutting off the HVAC or reversing it is different from calculating a preferred evacuation path that minimizes a total risk measure value.
Furthermore, the as-filed figures do not appear to connect the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level, to the total risk measure value as claimed.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for determining a preferred evacuation path that minimizes a total risk measure value computed by weighting one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention did not conceive of using the occupancy information to determine the risk measure value, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from base claim 1.
The same or substantially the same rejection applies to claim 11 for reciting “a preferred evacuation path that minimizes a total risk measure value computed by weighting one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level” (lines 10-12).
Claims 12-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from base claim 11.
The same or substantially the same rejection applies to claim 21 for reciting “a preferred evacuation path that minimizes a total risk measure value computed by weighting one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level” (lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 1, the threat mitigator is claimed to “to reduce or eliminate the threat based on…the preferred evacuation path” (lines 11-12). However, using the threat mitigator to reduce or eliminate the threat based on the preferred evacuation path isn’t disclosed in the as-filed specification. Instead, the PGPUB discloses “The occupancy flow planner 114 may then determine a preferred evacuation path that minimizes the total risk measure value” (Par. 0033). The threat mitigators 134 are disclosed as 1) a HVAC system in Par. 0045 and 2) guiding lighting, a display, mobile device notification, an audio announcement device, or the access control system in Par. 0046, but neither of these disclosures includes the occupancy flow planner 114. In addition, per Par. 0057, the threat mitigator 134 and occupancy flow planner 114 are different structures. This is supported by Fig. 1, which shows threat mitigator 134 and occupancy flow planner 114 as distinct structures.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for a threat mitigator that reduces or eliminates the threat based on the preferred evacuation path. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention did not conceive of the threat mitigator utilizing information about the preferred evacuation path, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from base claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, the HVAC is claimed to “pressurize the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone, and wherein the transition from said pressurizing to said reducing, stopping, or reversing of airflow is triggered automatically in response to a re-calculation of the occupancy information detecting that the occupants have moved out of the zone” (lines 5-8). However, there is no disclosure of pressurizing the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone nor automatically transitioning from pressurizing to reducing, stopping, or reversing airflow in the as-filed specification. Instead, the PGPUB discloses “In one aspect, the controller 110 may control the airflow in one or more particular zones of a building or in the entire building. For example, the HVAC components 132 may include a Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) that may support one of the following actions: maintain airflow, stop airflow or reverse airflow” (Par. 0045) and “the control instruction reduces or stops the airflow into the zone in the building based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone” (Par. 0052). Neither paragraph discloses pressurizing the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite of an evacuation path of the occupations out of the zone. It’s noted that searching the PGPUB does not yield results for “pressurize”, “opposite”, or “automatically”.
Furthermore, the as-filed figures do not appear to disclose the claimed limitations either.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for causing the HVAC system to pressurize the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone, and wherein the transition from said pressurizing to said reducing, stopping, or reversing of airflow is triggered automatically in response to a re-calculation of the occupancy information detecting that the occupants have moved out of the zone. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention did not conceive of pressurizing the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone, and wherein the transition from said pressurizing to said reducing, stopping, or reversing of airflow is triggered automatically in response to a re-calculation of the occupancy information detecting that the occupants have moved out of the zone, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 3.
The same or substantially the same rejection applies to claim 13 for reciting “pressurize the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone, and wherein the transition from said pressurizing to said reducing, stopping, or reversing of airflow is triggered automatically in response to a re-calculation of the occupancy information detecting that the occupants have moved out of the zone” (lines 5-8).
Regarding claim 5, the threat mitigator is claimed to be capable of “evaluating, for each candidate egress path, a pathway risk measure that accounts for occupant mobility level and a predicted exposure duration to the threat” (lines 2-6). However, the threat mitigator using the occupant mobility level and predicted exposure duration to determine a pathway risk measure for each candidate egress path isn’t specified in the as-filed specification. The only reference to a ‘pathway risk measure’ is in Par. 0028 of the PGPUB: “In certain aspects, pathway risk measures along a number of possible pathways may be evaluated until a preferred evacuation plan (e.g., preferred escape path) is determined.” Neither the occupant mobility level nor the predicted exposure duration is mentioned.
As noted in the rejection to claim 1 for the preferred evacuation path that minimizes a risk measure value computed by weighting one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level, the occupancy information, including occupant mobility level, is connected to control of the HVAC in general, not to an egress path. Reference the rejection above for more details.
Although Par. 0034 discloses the occupancy flow planner 114 may prioritize some occupants over others, i.e., consider a predicted exposure duration to the threat, this functionality is tied to the occupancy flow planner 114, not a threat mitigator 134. As noted in the rejection to claim 1 for the threat mitigator, per Par. 0057, the threat mitigator 134 and occupancy flow planner 114 are different structures. This is supported by Fig. 1, which identifies distinct structures for the threat mitigators 134 and occupancy flow planner 114.
Furthermore, the as-filed figures do not appear to connect the threat mitigator, occupant mobility level, predicted exposure duration and candidate egress paths as claimed.
In light of the above, it is the examiner’s decision that the written description lacks sufficient support for the threat mitigator evaluating, for each candidate egress path, a pathway risk measure that accounts for occupant mobility level and a predicted exposure duration to the threat. In other words, at the time of filing, it appears that the applicant’s invention did not conceive of using the threat mitigator to evaluate, for each candidate egress path, a pathway risk measure that accounts for occupant mobility level and a predicted exposure duration to the threat, so the applicant did not have possession of the claimed invention as recited in claim 5.
Claims 7-8 are rejected by virtue of their dependency from claim 5.
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.
Claims 3, 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 3 recites “a zone of the building associated with the threat” on lines 2-3 which renders the claim indefinite. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, previously introduced “a zone of the building associated with the threat” on line 15. It is unclear whether zone recited in claim 2 is meant to introduce a new structure (in which case the naming convention should be altered to distinguish the structures) or refer back to the same structure introduced earlier in claim 1 (in which case the article should be changed to “the”). For the purposes of substantiative examination, the zone of the building associated with the threat recited in claim 2 is interpreted as the same zone of the building associated with the threat as recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “the occupancy information comprises calculating one or more of: an occupant count, an occupant location, an occupant movement pattern, or an occupant mobility at least an occupant mobility level and at least one of: an occupant count, an occupant location, or an occupant movement pattern” which renders the claim indefinite. It’s unclear if which of the recited structures are option and which are required. In particular, “one or more of:” combined with “at least one of:” causes confusion. For the purposes of substantiative examination, the claim will be interpreted as if reciting “the occupancy information comprises calculating at least an occupant mobility level and at least one of: an occupant count, an occupant location, or an occupant movement pattern”.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same or substantially the same reason as claim 9 and will be interpreted in the same way.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khire et al (US 20170103633 A1, hereafter Khire).
Regarding claim 1, Khire discloses a method for responding to a threat detected in a building (Par. 0002, “a system and a method for mitigating threats within a building”), comprising:
acquiring sensor data (Par. 0005, threat parameter and Par. 0024, occupancy parameter) from one or more sensor devices (Par. 0005, threat controller and Par. 0024, occupancy sensor) located within the building (Par. 0005, “method to mitigate at least one threat associated with a building includes receiving at least one threat parameter of the at least one threat via at least one threat sensor, and actively controlling at least one threat mitigator in response to the at least one threat parameter via a threat controller” and Par. 0024, “In addition to one or more of the features described above…one occupancy sensor to receive at least one occupancy parameter, wherein the threat controller controls at least one threat mitigator in response to the at least threat parameter and the at least one occupancy parameter”), the one or more sensor devices including at least one deployable sensor mounted on a mobile platform (Par. 0031, “In certain embodiments, threat sensors 104 are deployable sensors mounted on mobile platforms, such as robots, that can be deployed as needed”);
calculating, based on the sensor data, occupancy information of occupants within the building (Par. 0047, “controller 110 includes an occupant sensing module 112. In an exemplary embodiment, occupant sensing module 112 can determine and interpret parameters regarding building occupants via occupancy sensors 102 and/or threat sensors 104. Occupant sensing module 112 can determine and process occupant parameters, including, but not limited to occupant locations, occupant mobility levels, occupant flow patterns, occupant flow predictions, etc. In certain embodiments, occupant sensing module 112 can provide a model of occupant locations and occupant flow predictions”), in response to detecting the threat in the building (Par. 0030, “In an exemplary embodiment, building threat mitigation control system 100 can provide active threat mitigation in response to one or more threats associated with a building. In an exemplary embodiment, system 100 provides real time decision control utilizing parameters received from occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104”), the occupancy information including an occupant mobility level for at least one occupant (Par. 0047, “occupant sensing module 112 can determine and interpret parameters regarding building occupants via occupancy sensors 102 and/or threat sensors 104. Occupant sensing module 112 can determine and process occupant parameters, including, but not limited to occupant locations, occupant mobility levels”); and
determining a preferred evacuation path that minimizes a total risk measure value computed by weighting one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level (Par. 0032, “Occupancy sensors 102 can provide occupancy parameters to controller 110. Occupancy parameters can include, but are not limited to, an occupant count, an occupant location, an occupant flow pattern, an occupant mobility level, a building layout, etc. In certain embodiments, data from occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104 can be combined to form data with increased accuracy or utility. Further, in certain embodiments, occupancy sensors 102 can be defined and categorized by local zones of a building”; Par. 0041, “threat mitigation module 120 can monitor the progress and effectiveness of the threat mitigation via input sensors such as occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104. Further, threat mitigation module 120 may make real time changes based on the progressing situation. In certain embodiments, threat mitigation module 120 can provide relevant information to the occupancy flow planner 114 to allow for evacuations to proceed accordingly.”; Par. 0052, “elevator planner 116 determines optimal elevator use in accordance with strategies created by occupancy flow planner 114”; Par. 0053, “Elevator planner 116 can evaluate operating conditions and threats relevant to elevator operation (e.g. fire; chemical, biological, or radiological, agents; or smoke near points of elevator entry/egress) to determine if elevator assisted evacuation is possible or recommended.”; and Par. 0054, “Elevator planner 116 can determine risk measure value by the time spent at each location in the building multiplied by the risk measure value at that location, summed separately for each evacuee over their evacuation path to minimize such a value.”); and
sending a first control instruction (Par. 0024, “the threat controller controls at least one threat mitigator” and Par. 0059, “In certain embodiments, threat mitigator 134 can include a threat suppressant system. In certain embodiments, the threat suppressant system can deploy suitable suppressants contingent on the presence of occupants as directed by threat mitigation system 120…if occupants are detected in a certain area, a suppressant safe for the occupants is deployed”) to a threat mitigator (Par. 0024, at least one threat mitigator) to reduce or eliminate the threat based on the occupancy information and the preferred evacuation path (Par. 0024, “the threat controller controls at least one threat mitigator in response to the at least threat parameter and the at least one occupancy parameter” and Par. 0056, “HVAC system 136 is utilized as a threat mitigator 134… HVAC system 136 threat mitigation strategies include, but are not limited to supplying threat suppressant via HVAC system 136 (e.g., supply air ducts) in the threat zone, adjacent zones, and evacuation path to minimize the spread of threat, such as fire”); and
after the first control instruction has been sent, re-calculating updated occupancy information based on additional sensor data (Par. 0041, “threat mitigation module 120 can monitor the progress and effectiveness of the threat mitigation via input sensors such as occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104. Further, threat mitigation module 120 may make real time changes based on the progressing situation. In certain embodiments, threat mitigation module 120 can provide relevant information to the occupancy flow planner 114 to allow for evacuations to proceed accordingly.”) and, in response to the updated occupancy information indicating an absence of occupants from a zone of the building associated with the threat, sending a second, different control instruction to the threat mitigator that is more aggressive than the first control instruction (Par. 0059, “In certain embodiments, threat mitigator 134 can include a threat suppressant system. In certain embodiments, the threat suppressant system can deploy suitable suppressants contingent on the presence of occupants as directed by threat mitigation system 120. If there are no occupants in a certain area, a more aggressive suppression strategy can be used. Alternatively, if occupants are detected in a certain area, a suppressant safe for the occupants is deployed. For example, an aggressive fire suppressant includes those that are typically not considered safe for humans but are very effective in controlling threats, such as CO2 in the case of fire.”).
Regarding claim 2, Khire discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the threat comprises a fire (Par. 0056, “threat, such as fire”) and wherein the threat mitigator comprises a Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system (Par. 0056, “HVAC system 136 is utilized as a threat mitigator 134”).
Regarding claim 4, Khire discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising directing a movement of an occupant of the building via the threat mitigator (Par. 0040, “threat mitigation module 120 can utilize threat mitigators 134 to deploy the selected threat mitigation plan (e.g.…pressurize the adjacent two zones with HVAC, provide evacuation direction to occupants)”).
Regarding claim 6, Khire discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more sensor devices (Par. 0005, threat controller and Par. 0024, occupancy sensor) comprise: a video sensor (Par. 0032, video camera), a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor (Par. 0032, LIDAR), an infrared sensor (Par. 0032, passive infrared motion sensors), or a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor (Par. 0032, radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags) .
Regarding claim 9, Khire discloses the method of claim 1, wherein calculating the occupancy information (Par. 0047, as quoted in claim 1) comprises calculating at least an occupant mobility level (Par. 0047, occupant mobility level) and at least one of: an occupant count (Par. 0067, occupant count), an occupant location (Par. 0047, occupant location), an occupant movement pattern (Par. 0047, occupant flow pattern).
Regarding claim 11, Khire discloses a system for responding to a threat detected in a building (Par. 0002, “a system and a method for mitigating threats within a building”) comprising:
one or more hardware processors, individually or in combination (Par. 0068, “the threat controller or main controller”; Par. 0033, “controller 110 may provide emergency and threat responses based on numerous parameters, including sensed parameters, known parameters, and extrapolations thereof”. A processor is designed to take in and use information, therefore the aforementioned controllers are ‘processors’ because they take in information from parameters and use that information to respond to threats), configured to:
acquire sensor data (Par. 0031, threat parameters and Par. 0032, occupancy parameters) from one or more sensor devices (Par. 0031, “Threat sensors 104 can provide threat parameters to controller 110” and Par. 0032, “Occupancy sensors 102 can provide occupancy parameters to controller 110”) located within the building, the one or more sensor devices including at least one deployable sensor mounted on a mobile platform (Par. 0031, “In certain embodiments, threat sensors 104 are deployable sensors mounted on mobile platforms, such as robots, that can be deployed as needed”);
calculate, based on the sensor data, occupancy information of occupants within the building (Par. 0047, “controller 110 includes an occupant sensing module 112. In an exemplary embodiment, occupant sensing module 112 can determine and interpret parameters regarding building occupants via occupancy sensors 102 and/or threat sensors 104. Occupant sensing module 112 can determine and process occupant parameters, including, but not limited to occupant locations, occupant mobility levels, occupant flow patterns, occupant flow predictions, etc. In certain embodiments, occupant sensing module 112 can provide a model of occupant locations and occupant flow predictions”), in response to detecting the threat in the building (Par. 0030, “In an exemplary embodiment, building threat mitigation control system 100 can provide active threat mitigation in response to one or more threats associated with a building. In an exemplary embodiment, system 100 provides real time decision control utilizing parameters received from occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104”), the occupancy information including an occupant mobility level for at least one occupant (Par. 0047, “occupant sensing module 112 can determine and interpret parameters regarding building occupants via occupancy sensors 102 and/or threat sensors 104. Occupant sensing module 112 can determine and process occupant parameters, including, but not limited to occupant locations, occupant mobility levels”); and
determining a preferred evacuation path that minimizes a total risk measure value computed by weighting one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level (Par. 0032, “Occupancy sensors 102 can provide occupancy parameters to controller 110. Occupancy parameters can include, but are not limited to, an occupant count, an occupant location, an occupant flow pattern, an occupant mobility level, a building layout, etc. In certain embodiments, data from occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104 can be combined to form data with increased accuracy or utility. Further, in certain embodiments, occupancy sensors 102 can be defined and categorized by local zones of a building”; Par. 0041, “threat mitigation module 120 can monitor the progress and effectiveness of the threat mitigation via input sensors such as occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104. Further, threat mitigation module 120 may make real time changes based on the progressing situation. In certain embodiments, threat mitigation module 120 can provide relevant information to the occupancy flow planner 114 to allow for evacuations to proceed accordingly.”; Par. 0052, “elevator planner 116 determines optimal elevator use in accordance with strategies created by occupancy flow planner 114”; Par. 0053, “Elevator planner 116 can evaluate operating conditions and threats relevant to elevator operation (e.g. fire; chemical, biological, or radiological, agents; or smoke near points of elevator entry/egress) to determine if elevator assisted evacuation is possible or recommended.”; and Par. 0054, “Elevator planner 116 can determine risk measure value by the time spent at each location in the building multiplied by the risk measure value at that location, summed separately for each evacuee over their evacuation path to minimize such a value.”); and
send a first control instruction (Par. 0024, “the threat controller controls at least one threat mitigator” and Par. 0059, “In certain embodiments, threat mitigator 134 can include a threat suppressant system. In certain embodiments, the threat suppressant system can deploy suitable suppressants contingent on the presence of occupants as directed by threat mitigation system 120…if occupants are detected in a certain area, a suppressant safe for the occupants is deployed”) to a threat mitigator (Par. 0024, at least one threat mitigator) to reduce or eliminate the threat based on the occupancy information and the preferred evacuation path (Par. 0024, “the threat controller controls at least one threat mitigator in response to the at least threat parameter and the at least one occupancy parameter” and Par. 0056, “HVAC system 136 is utilized as a threat mitigator 134… HVAC system 136 threat mitigation strategies include, but are not limited to supplying threat suppressant via HVAC system 136 (e.g., supply air ducts) in the threat zone, adjacent zones, and evacuation path to minimize the spread of threat, such as fire”).
wherein the one or more hardware processors, individually or in combination, are
further configured to, after the first control instruction has been sent, re-calculating updated occupancy information based on additional sensor data (Par. 0041, “threat mitigation module 120 can monitor the progress and effectiveness of the threat mitigation via input sensors such as occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104. Further, threat mitigation module 120 may make real time changes based on the progressing situation. In certain embodiments, threat mitigation module 120 can provide relevant information to the occupancy flow planner 114 to allow for evacuations to proceed accordingly.”) and, in response to the updated occupancy information indicating an absence of occupants from a zone of the building associated with the threat, sending a second, different control instruction to the threat mitigator that is more aggressive than the first control instruction (Par. 0059, “In certain embodiments, threat mitigator 134 can include a threat suppressant system. In certain embodiments, the threat suppressant system can deploy suitable suppressants contingent on the presence of occupants as directed by threat mitigation system 120. If there are no occupants in a certain area, a more aggressive suppression strategy can be used. Alternatively, if occupants are detected in a certain area, a suppressant safe for the occupants is deployed. For example, an aggressive fire suppressant includes those that are typically not considered safe for humans but are very effective in controlling threats, such as CO2 in the case of fire.”).
Regarding claim 12, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 2 above. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, Khire discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more hardware processors, individually or in combination (Par. 0068, “the threat controller or main controller”; Par. 0033, controller 110, as quoted and explained above), are further configured to direct a movement of an occupant of the building via the threat mitigator (Par. 0038, “controller 110 utilizes threat mitigation module 120 to provide active mitigation to threats within the building” and Par. 0040, “threat mitigation module 120 can utilize threat mitigators 134 to deploy the selected threat mitigation plan (e.g.…pressurize the adjacent two zones with HVAC, provide evacuation direction to occupants)”).
Regarding claim 16, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 6 above. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 19, Khire discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more hardware processors, individually or in combination (Par. 0068, “the threat controller or main controller”; Par. 0033, controller 110, as quoted and explained above), configured to calculate the occupancy information (Par. 0047, “controller 110 includes an occupant sensing module 112”) are further configured to calculate at least an occupant mobility level (Par. 0047, occupant mobility level) and at least one of: an occupant count (Par. 0067, occupant count), an occupant location (Par. 0047, occupant location), an occupant movement pattern (Par. 0047, occupant flow pattern).
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.
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 3, 5, 7-8, 13, 15, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khire et al. (US 20170103633 A1, hereafter Khire) in further view of Nohara et al. (JP H0642785 A, hereafter Nohara) and Locke et al. (US 20180364654 A1, hereafter Locke).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Nohara ‘785.
Regarding claim 3, Khire discloses the method of claim 2.
NOTE: Khire discloses pressurizing the evacuation route in Par. 0056, “HVAC system 136 can also be used for pressurizing the evacuation route. Advantageously, this allows the evacuation route to remain free of harmful substances such as smoke, chemical fumes, and biological agents”.
However, Khire does not explicitly disclose the control instruction reduces, stops, or reverses an airflow into the building or into a zone in the building associated with the threat based on the occupancy information indicating an absence of the occupants in the zone and wherein, prior to the absence being indicated, the control instruction causes the HVAC system to pressurize the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone, and wherein the transition from said pressurizing to said reducing, stopping, or reversing of airflow is triggered automatically in response to a re-calculation of the occupancy information detecting that the occupants have moved out of the zone.
Nohara discloses a control instruction (Par. 0015, signal) reduces (Par. 0015, “stops driving the air conditioner 40”. Note stopping air conditioner 40 necessarily means the airflow is reduced from its previous level), stops (Par. 0015, “stops driving the air conditioner 40”) or reverses an airflow into a building or into a zone in the building (Fig. 3 and Par. 0018, “the flow of smoke (shown by solid lines) is in the opposite direction to the evacuation route of residents (shown by dashed lines), so smoke does not hinder evacuation”) associated with a threat (Par. 0003, fire) and the control instruction causes the HVAC system to pressurize the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone (Par. 0007, “in the event of a fire, the pressurized air supply means pressurizes the end area of the evacuation route along which residents will evacuate. As a result, the airflow in the end area begins to flow toward the start area of the evacuation route, where the air pressure is lower due to the pressure difference. That is, an air current is generated inside the building that flows from the end area of the evacuation route to the start area.” and Par. 0018, “Therefore, the flow of smoke (shown by solid lines) is in the opposite direction to the evacuation route of residents (shown by dashed lines), so smoke does not hinder evacuation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Khire to include a control instruction reduces, stops, or reverses an airflow into a building or into a zone in the building associated with a threat as taught by Nohara so the smoke does not hinder evacuation (As suggested by Par. 0008 of Nohara: “the smoke does not spread and flows in the opposite direction to the evacuation direction of the residents, so it does not hinder evacuation”) for increased occupant safety during a threat.
However, Khire, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the control instruction reduces, stops, or reverses an airflow into the building or into a zone in the building associated with the threat based on the occupancy information indicating an absence of the occupants in the zone and wherein, prior to the absence being indicated, the control instruction causes the HVAC system to pressurize the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone, and wherein the transition from said pressurizing to said reducing, stopping, or reversing of airflow is triggered automatically in response to a re-calculation of the occupancy information detecting that the occupants have moved out of the zone.
Locke discloses a control instruction (Par. 0124, control) reduces or stops an airflow into the building or into a zone in the building associated with the threat based on the occupancy information indicating an absence of the occupants in the zone (Par. 0124, “HVAC subsystems 666 are configured to reply to agent 552 and indicate whether there is no occupancy in the area of the building. Agent 552, via HVAC system reactive operator 673, can control HVAC subsystems 666 to reduce oxygen in the unoccupied area of the building. For example, the agent 552 can control HVAC subsystems 666 to operate fans (e.g., an AHU supply fan) and/or exhaust and/or ventilation dampers to stop the circulation of air in the building.”) and wherein, prior to the absence being indicated, the control instruction causes the HVAC system to exhaust smoke (Par. 0124, “If there is occupancy reported by HVAC subsystems 666, the reactive operator 673 can attempt to exhaust smoke via exhaust and/or ventilation dampers or fans to aid the occupant in evacuating the building”), and wherein the transition from said pressurizing to said reducing or stopping of airflow is triggered automatically (Par. 0002, “The present disclosure relates more particularly to methods and apparatus for providing automated control of a BMS using artificial intelligence.”) in response to a re-calculation of the occupancy information detecting that the occupants have moved out of the zone (Par. 0124, “The HVAC reactive operator 673 can be configured to cause agent 552 to query HVAC subsystems 666 for an indication of occupancy in an area of a building that HVAC subsystems 666 is located and/or configured to control. HVAC subsystems 666 are configured to reply to agent 552 and indicate whether there is no occupancy in the area of the building. Agent 552, via HVAC system reactive operator 673, can control HVAC subsystems 666 to reduce oxygen in the unoccupied area of the building. For example, the agent 552 can control HVAC subsystems 666 to operate fans (e.g., an AHU supply fan) and/or exhaust and/or ventilation dampers to stop the circulation of air in the building.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Khire, as modified above, to include the control instructions of Locke in order to reduce, stop, or reverse an airflow into the building or into a zone in the building associated with the threat based on the occupancy information indicating an absence of the occupants in the zone and wherein, prior to the absence being indicated, the control instruction causes the HVAC system to pressurize the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone, and wherein the transition from said pressurizing to said reducing, stopping, or reversing of airflow is triggered automatically in response to a re-calculation of the occupancy information detecting that the occupants have moved out of the zone and thereby increase occupant safety by reducing the risk that the fire will spread (As suggested by Par. 0124 of Locke: “Reducing the circulation of air in the building can prevent the fire from spreading.”).
Regarding claim 5, Khire discloses the method of claim 4, wherein directing the movement of the occupant of the building via the threat mitigator further comprises directing the occupant along an exit path away from a zone in the building associated with the threat (Par. 0041, “threat mitigation module 120 can provide relevant information to the occupancy flow planner 114 to allow for evacuations to proceed accordingly “ and Par. 0051, “occupancy flow planner 114 directs occupants to refuge spaces instead of, or in addition to, exiting a building. A refuge space in a building may be an area with protection from spread of fire, special facilities, alternative air supply, emergency power, etc. In certain embodiments, occupancy flow planner 114 can determine suitable refuge areas for evacuation purposes”), the exit path being selected from among a plurality of candidate egress paths by evaluating, for each candidate egress path, a pathway risk measure that accounts for occupant mobility level and a predicted exposure duration to the threat (Par. 0050, ”the use of real-time, predictive models allows controller 110 to determine an egress strategy that is adaptable to actual conditions rather than a fixed strategy that may have been optimized for a single condition…pathway risk measures along a number of possible pathways can be evaluated until an optimal evacuation plan is determined.”; Par. 0054, “Elevator planner 116 can determine risk measure value by the time spent at each location in the building multiplied by the risk measure value at that location, summed separately for each evacuee over their evacuation path to minimize such a value”; Par. 0064, “Advantageously, occupancy actuators 130 can direct occupants to desired locations such as optimal exit paths or paths to refuge zones as determined by occupancy flow planner 114.”; Par. 0032, “Occupancy sensors 102 can provide occupancy parameters to controller 110. Occupancy parameters can include, but are not limited to…an occupant mobility level”; Par. 0041, “threat mitigation module 120 can monitor the progress and effectiveness of the threat mitigation via input sensors such as occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104. In certain embodiments, threat mitigation module 120 can provide relevant information to the occupancy flow planner 114 to allow for evacuations to proceed accordingly.”; and Par. 0049, “occupancy flow planner 114 can determine optimal elevator floor selection to minimize impact on risk exposure time or other factors.”).
However, Khire does not explicitly disclose the control instruction reduces, stops, or reverses an airflow into the zone in the building based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone.
Nohara discloses a control instruction (Par. 0015, control instruction) reduces, (Par. 0015, “stops driving the air conditioner 40”. Note stopping air conditioner 40 necessarily means the airflow is reduced from its previous level), stops (Par. 0015, “stops driving the air conditioner 40”) or reverses an airflow into a zone in a building (Fig. 3 and Par. 0018, “the flow of smoke (shown by solid lines) is in the opposite direction to the evacuation route of residents (shown by dashed lines), so smoke does not hinder evacuation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Khire to include a control instruction reduces, stops, or reverses an airflow into a zone in a building as taught by Nohara so the smoke does not hinder evacuation (As suggested by Par. 0008 of Nohara: “the smoke does not spread and flows in the opposite direction to the evacuation direction of the residents, so it does not hinder evacuation”) for increased occupant safety during a threat.
However, Khire, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the control instruction reduces, stops, or reverses an airflow into the zone in the building based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone.
Locke discloses a control instruction (Par. 0124, control) reduces or stops an airflow into the zone in the building based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone (Par. 0124, “HVAC subsystems 666 are configured to reply to agent 552 and indicate whether there is no occupancy in the area of the building. Agent 552, via HVAC system reactive operator 673, can control HVAC subsystems 666 to reduce oxygen in the unoccupied area of the building. For example, the agent 552 can control HVAC subsystems 666 to operate fans (e.g., an AHU supply fan) and/or exhaust and/or ventilation dampers to stop the circulation of air in the building.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Khire, as modified above, to include the control instructions of Locke in order to reduce, stop, or reverse an airflow into the building or into a zone in the building associated with the threat based on the occupancy information indicating an absence of the occupants in the zone and wherein, prior to the absence being indicated, the control instruction causes the HVAC system to pressurize the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone, and wherein the transition from said pressurizing to said reducing, stopping, or reversing of airflow is triggered automatically in response to a re-calculation of the occupancy information detecting that the occupants have moved out of the zone and thereby increase occupant safety by reducing the risk that the fire will spread (As suggested by Par. 0124 of Locke: “Reducing the circulation of air in the building can prevent the fire from spreading.”).
Regarding claim 7, Khire discloses the method of claim 5, wherein the threat mitigator (Par. 0024, at least one threat mitigator) comprises a guiding lighting system (Par. 0003, lighting system), a mobile device notification (Par. 0062, mobile notification and mitigation platform), or an access control system (Par. 0060, access control system).
Regarding claim 8, Khire discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising sending instructions to the access control system to selectively lock and/or unlock one or more access points at one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information (Par. 0060, an access control system prevents any occupant from entering the zone that is being delivered an aggressive suppressant. Access control devices may lock all entry points to this zone and revoke/suspend all occupant credentials”).
Regarding claim 13, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 3 above. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, Khire discloses the system of claim 14, wherein the one or more hardware processors, individually or in combination (Par. 0068, “the threat controller or main controller”; Par. 0033, controller 110, as quoted and explained above), configured to direct the movement of the occupant of the building via the threat mitigator are further configured to direct the occupant along an exit path away from a zone in the building associated with the threat (Par. 0041, “threat mitigation module 120 can provide relevant information to the occupancy flow planner 114 to allow for evacuations to proceed accordingly “ and Par. 0051, “occupancy flow planner 114 directs occupants to refuge spaces instead of, or in addition to, exiting a building. A refuge space in a building may be an area with protection from spread of fire, special facilities, alternative air supply, emergency power, etc. In certain embodiments, occupancy flow planner 114 can determine suitable refuge areas for evacuation purposes”), the exit path being selected from among a plurality of candidate egress paths by evaluating, for each candidate egress path, a pathway risk measure that accounts for occupant mobility level and a predicted exposure duration to the threat (Par. 0050, ”the use of real-time, predictive models allows controller 110 to determine an egress strategy that is adaptable to actual conditions rather than a fixed strategy that may have been optimized for a single condition…pathway risk measures along a number of possible pathways can be evaluated until an optimal evacuation plan is determined.”; Par. 0054, “Elevator planner 116 can determine risk measure value by the time spent at each location in the building multiplied by the risk measure value at that location, summed separately for each evacuee over their evacuation path to minimize such a value”; Par. 0064, “Advantageously, occupancy actuators 130 can direct occupants to desired locations such as optimal exit paths or paths to refuge zones as determined by occupancy flow planner 114.”; Par. 0032, “Occupancy sensors 102 can provide occupancy parameters to controller 110. Occupancy parameters can include, but are not limited to…an occupant mobility level”; Par. 0041, “threat mitigation module 120 can monitor the progress and effectiveness of the threat mitigation via input sensors such as occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104. In certain embodiments, threat mitigation module 120 can provide relevant information to the occupancy flow planner 114 to allow for evacuations to proceed accordingly.”; and Par. 0049, “occupancy flow planner 114 can determine optimal elevator floor selection to minimize impact on risk exposure time or other factors.”).
However, Khire does not explicitly disclose the control instruction reduces, stops, or reverses an airflow into the zone in the building based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone.
Nohara discloses a control device (Par. 0015, control device 36) and a control instruction (Par. 0015, signal) that reduces, (Par. 0015, “stops driving the air conditioner 40”. Note stopping air conditioner 40 necessarily means the airflow is reduced from its previous level), stops (Par. 0015, “stops driving the air conditioner 40”) or reverses an airflow into a zone in a building (Fig. 3 and Par. 0018, “the flow of smoke (shown by solid lines) is in the opposite direction to the evacuation route of residents (shown by dashed lines), so smoke does not hinder evacuation”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Khire to include a control instruction reduces, stops, or reverses an airflow into a zone in a building as taught by Nohara so the smoke does not hinder evacuation (As suggested by Par. 0008 of Nohara: “the smoke does not spread and flows in the opposite direction to the evacuation direction of the residents, so it does not hinder evacuation”) for increased occupant safety during a threat.
However, Khire, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the control instruction reduces, stops, or reverses an airflow into the zone in the building based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone.
Locke discloses a controller agent (Par. 0102, “The BMS controller 526 may include one or more BMS controller agents 552”) and a control instruction (Par. 0124, control) reduces or stops an airflow into the zone in the building based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone (Par. 0124, “HVAC subsystems 666 are configured to reply to agent 552 and indicate whether there is no occupancy in the area of the building. Agent 552, via HVAC system reactive operator 673, can control HVAC subsystems 666 to reduce oxygen in the unoccupied area of the building. For example, the agent 552 can control HVAC subsystems 666 to operate fans (e.g., an AHU supply fan) and/or exhaust and/or ventilation dampers to stop the circulation of air in the building.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Khire, as modified above, to include the control instructions of Locke in order to reduce, stop, or reverse an airflow into the building or into a zone in the building associated with the threat based on the occupancy information indicating an absence of the occupants in the zone and wherein, prior to the absence being indicated, the control instruction causes the HVAC system to pressurize the zone to direct smoke in a direction opposite an evacuation path of the occupants out of the zone, and wherein the transition from said pressurizing to said reducing, stopping, or reversing of airflow is triggered automatically in response to a re-calculation of the occupancy information detecting that the occupants have moved out of the zone and thereby increase occupant safety by reducing the risk that the fire will spread (As suggested by Par. 0124 of Locke: “Reducing the circulation of air in the building can prevent the fire from spreading.”).
Regarding claim 17, these limitations are recited in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 7 above. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 18, Khire discloses the system of claim 17, wherein the one or more hardware processors, individually or in combination (Par. 0068, “the threat controller or main controller”; Par. 0033, controller 110, as quoted and explained above), are further configured to send instructions to the access control system to selectively lock and/or unlock one or more access points at one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information (Par. 0060, an access control system prevents any occupant from entering the zone that is being delivered an aggressive suppressant. Access control devices may lock all entry points to this zone and revoke/suspend all occupant credentials”).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khire et al (US 20170103633 A1, hereafter Khire) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takeda et al. (WO 2017017804 A1, hereafter Takeda).
Regarding claim 10, Khire discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising calculating an exit path for the occupant of the building based on the occupancy information (Par. 0048, “Occupancy flow planner 114 can utilize people flow models that predict the flow rate in all possible egress paths, such as corridors, stairways, doorways, elevators, escalators, etc”), a stored building plan (Par. 0016, building layout and Par. 0051, special facilities, alternative air supply, emergency power. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the occupancy flow planner must necessarily use the building layout to know the locations of special facilities, alternative air supply and emergency power. Similarly, the building layout must necessarily be stored in order for the occupancy flow planner to access it) identifying locations of stairways, corridors, doorways (Par. 0048, “Occupancy flow planner 114 can utilize people flow models that predict the flow rate in all possible egress paths, such as corridors, stairways, doorways, elevators, escalators, etc.”), access control devices (Par. 0033, “Known parameters can include building design, such as design of stairways and corridors, location of door access control devices…etc”), and refuge spaces (Par. 0051, “occupancy flow planner 114 directs occupants to refuge spaces…A refuge space in a building may be an area with protection from spread of fire, special facilities, alternative air supply, emergency power, etc. In certain embodiments, occupancy flow planner 114 can determine suitable refuge areas for evacuation purposes.”), and a zone in the building associated with the threat (Par. 0051, area with protection from fire: “occupancy flow planner 114 directs occupants to refuge spaces instead of, or in addition to, exiting a building. A refuge space in a building may be an area with protection from spread of fire, special facilities, alternative air supply, emergency power, etc. In certain embodiments, occupancy flow planner 114 can determine suitable refuge areas for evacuation purposes”), the calculating including computing a total risk measure value by weighting time spent at each of a plurality of floors by a respective per-floor risk value and selecting the exit path to minimize the total risk measure value (Par. 0053, “Elevator planner 116 can evaluate operating conditions and threats relevant to elevator operation (e.g. fire; chemical, biological, or radiological, agents; or smoke near points of elevator entry/egress) to determine if elevator assisted evacuation is possible or recommended.” and Par. 0054, “Elevator planner 116 can determine risk measure value by the time spent at each location in the building multiplied by the risk measure value at that location, summed separately for each evacuee over their evacuation path to minimize such a value.”) and directing the movement of the occupant based on the exit path (Par. 0064, “occupancy actuators 130 can include, but are not limited to a display, a light output, a mobile communication device notification, audio announcement device, a mobile platform to guide occupants, and a door access control. In certain embodiments, occupancy actuator 130 can utilize elevator, escalator, and people mover control 132 to control the flow of occupants therein. In other embodiments, occupancy actuator 130 can utilize door/access control 144 to control the movement of occupants therein”).
To the extent the Applicant disagrees and finds that the claimed product and prior art product are different, then the following teaching reference is provided.
Takeda discloses it is known to have a stored building plan (Pg. 11, last Par., “the memory unit 62 stores…data representing the floor plan of the building 10”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khire by applying the teachings of Takeda to Khire, i.e., utilizing storage as a known way of saving building plan information.
Regarding claim 20, Khire discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more hardware processors, individually or in combination (Par. 0068, “the threat controller or main controller”; Par. 0033, controller 110, as quoted and explained above), are further configured to calculate an exit path for an occupant of the building (Par. 0064, “controller 110 utilizes occupancy actuators 130 to control the flow of occupants within the building in accordance with occupancy flow planner 114”) based on the occupancy information Par. 0048, “Occupancy flow planner 114 can utilize people flow models that predict the flow rate in all possible egress paths, such as corridors, stairways, doorways, elevators, escalators, etc”), a stored building plan (Par. 0016, building layout and Par. 0051, special facilities, alternative air supply, emergency power. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the occupancy flow planner must necessarily use the building layout to know the locations of special facilities, alternative air supply and emergency power. Similarly, the building layout must necessarily be stored in order for the occupancy flow planner to access it) identifying locations of stairways, corridors, doorways (Par. 0048, “Occupancy flow planner 114 can utilize people flow models that predict the flow rate in all possible egress paths, such as corridors, stairways, doorways, elevators, escalators, etc.”), access control devices (Par. 0033, “Known parameters can include building design, such as design of stairways and corridors, location of door access control devices…etc”), and refuge spaces (Par. 0051, “occupancy flow planner 114 directs occupants to refuge spaces…A refuge space in a building may be an area with protection from spread of fire, special facilities, alternative air supply, emergency power, etc. In certain embodiments, occupancy flow planner 114 can determine suitable refuge areas for evacuation purposes.”), and a zone in the building associated with the threat (Par. 0051, area with protection from fire: “occupancy flow planner 114 directs occupants to refuge spaces instead of, or in addition to, exiting a building. A refuge space in a building may be an area with protection from spread of fire, special facilities, alternative air supply, emergency power, etc. In certain embodiments, occupancy flow planner 114 can determine suitable refuge areas for evacuation purposes”), the calculating including computing a total risk measure value by weighting time spent at each of a plurality of floors by a respective per-floor risk value and selecting the exit path to minimize the total risk measure value (Par. 0053, “Elevator planner 116 can evaluate operating conditions and threats relevant to elevator operation (e.g. fire; chemical, biological, or radiological, agents; or smoke near points of elevator entry/egress) to determine if elevator assisted evacuation is possible or recommended.” and Par. 0054, “Elevator planner 116 can determine risk measure value by the time spent at each location in the building multiplied by the risk measure value at that location, summed separately for each evacuee over their evacuation path to minimize such a value.”) and configured to direct a movement of the occupant based on the exit path (Par. 0064, “occupancy actuators 130 can include, but are not limited to a display, a light output, a mobile communication device notification, audio announcement device, a mobile platform to guide occupants, and a door access control. In certain embodiments, occupancy actuator 130 can utilize elevator, escalator, and people mover control 132 to control the flow of occupants therein. In other embodiments, occupancy actuator 130 can utilize door/access control 144 to control the movement of occupants therein”).
To the extent the Applicant disagrees and finds that the claimed product and prior art product are different, then the following teaching reference is provided.
Takeda discloses it is known to have a stored building plan (Pg. 11, last Par., “the memory unit 62 stores…data representing the floor plan of the building 10”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khire by applying the teachings of Takeda to Khire, i.e., utilizing storage as a known way of saving building plan information.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Khire et al (US 20170103633 A1, hereafter Khire) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sloo et al. (US 20150097678 A1, hereafter Sloo).
Regarding claim 21, Khire discloses one or more processors, individually or in combination, that respond to a threat detected in a building (Par. 0068, “the threat controller or main controller”; Par. 0033, “controller 110 may provide emergency and threat responses based on numerous parameters, including sensed parameters, known parameters, and extrapolations thereof”. A processor is designed to take in and use information, therefore the aforementioned controllers are ‘processors’ because they take in information from parameters and use that information to respond to threats and Par. 0002, “a system and a method for mitigating threats within a building”) by:
acquiring sensor data (Par. 0031, threat parameters and Par. 0032, occupancy parameters) from one or more sensor devices (Par. 0031, “Threat sensors 104 can provide threat parameters to controller 110” and Par. 0032, “Occupancy sensors 102 can provide occupancy parameters to controller 110”) located within the building, the one or more sensor devices including at least one deployable sensor mounted on a mobile platform (Par. 0031, “In certain embodiments, threat sensors 104 are deployable sensors mounted on mobile platforms, such as robots, that can be deployed as needed”);
calculating, based on the sensor data, occupancy information of occupants within the building (Par. 0047, “controller 110 includes an occupant sensing module 112. In an exemplary embodiment, occupant sensing module 112 can determine and interpret parameters regarding building occupants via occupancy sensors 102 and/or threat sensors 104. Occupant sensing module 112 can determine and process occupant parameters, including, but not limited to occupant locations, occupant mobility levels, occupant flow patterns, occupant flow predictions, etc. In certain embodiments, occupant sensing module 112 can provide a model of occupant locations and occupant flow predictions”), in response to detecting the threat in the building (Par. 0030, “In an exemplary embodiment, building threat mitigation control system 100 can provide active threat mitigation in response to one or more threats associated with a building. In an exemplary embodiment, system 100 provides real time decision control utilizing parameters received from occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104”), the occupancy information including an occupant mobility level for at least one occupant (Par. 0047, “occupant sensing module 112 can determine and interpret parameters regarding building occupants via occupancy sensors 102 and/or threat sensors 104. Occupant sensing module 112 can determine and process occupant parameters, including, but not limited to occupant locations, occupant mobility levels”); and
determining a preferred evacuation path that minimizes a total risk measure value computed by weighting one or more zones of the building based on the occupancy information, including the occupant mobility level (Par. 0032, “Occupancy sensors 102 can provide occupancy parameters to controller 110. Occupancy parameters can include, but are not limited to, an occupant count, an occupant location, an occupant flow pattern, an occupant mobility level, a building layout, etc. In certain embodiments, data from occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104 can be combined to form data with increased accuracy or utility. Further, in certain embodiments, occupancy sensors 102 can be defined and categorized by local zones of a building”; Par. 0041, “threat mitigation module 120 can monitor the progress and effectiveness of the threat mitigation via input sensors such as occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104. Further, threat mitigation module 120 may make real time changes based on the progressing situation. In certain embodiments, threat mitigation module 120 can provide relevant information to the occupancy flow planner 114 to allow for evacuations to proceed accordingly.”; Par. 0052, “elevator planner 116 determines optimal elevator use in accordance with strategies created by occupancy flow planner 114”; Par. 0053, “Elevator planner 116 can evaluate operating conditions and threats relevant to elevator operation (e.g. fire; chemical, biological, or radiological, agents; or smoke near points of elevator entry/egress) to determine if elevator assisted evacuation is possible or recommended.”; and Par. 0054, “Elevator planner 116 can determine risk measure value by the time spent at each location in the building multiplied by the risk measure value at that location, summed separately for each evacuee over their evacuation path to minimize such a value.”); and
sending a first control instruction (Par. 0024, “the threat controller controls at least one threat mitigator” and Par. 0059, “In certain embodiments, threat mitigator 134 can include a threat suppressant system. In certain embodiments, the threat suppressant system can deploy suitable suppressants contingent on the presence of occupants as directed by threat mitigation system 120…if occupants are detected in a certain area, a suppressant safe for the occupants is deployed”) to a threat mitigator (Par. 0024, at least one threat mitigator) to reduce or eliminate the threat based on the occupancy information and the preferred evacuation path (Par. 0024, “the threat controller controls at least one threat mitigator in response to the at least threat parameter and the at least one occupancy parameter” and Par. 0056, “HVAC system 136 is utilized as a threat mitigator 134… HVAC system 136 threat mitigation strategies include, but are not limited to supplying threat suppressant via HVAC system 136 (e.g., supply air ducts) in the threat zone, adjacent zones, and evacuation path to minimize the spread of threat, such as fire”).
after the first control instruction has been sent, re-calculating updated occupancy information based on additional sensor data (Par. 0041, “threat mitigation module 120 can monitor the progress and effectiveness of the threat mitigation via input sensors such as occupancy sensors 102 and threat sensors 104. Further, threat mitigation module 120 may make real time changes based on the progressing situation. In certain embodiments, threat mitigation module 120 can provide relevant information to the occupancy flow planner 114 to allow for evacuations to proceed accordingly.”) and, in response to the updated occupancy information indicating an absence of occupants from a zone of the building associated with the threat, sending a second, different control instruction to the threat mitigator that is more aggressive than the first control instruction (Par. 0059, “In certain embodiments, threat mitigator 134 can include a threat suppressant system. In certain embodiments, the threat suppressant system can deploy suitable suppressants contingent on the presence of occupants as directed by threat mitigation system 120. If there are no occupants in a certain area, a more aggressive suppression strategy can be used. Alternatively, if occupants are detected in a certain area, a suppressant safe for the occupants is deployed. For example, an aggressive fire suppressant includes those that are typically not considered safe for humans but are very effective in controlling threats, such as CO2 in the case of fire.”).
NOTE: When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors, individually or in combination, to respond to a threat detected in a building” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02.
To the extent the Applicant disagrees and finds that the claimed product and prior art product are different, then the following teaching reference is provided.
Sloo discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (Par. 0007, “a non-transitory processor-readable medium for a hazard detector”) having instructions stored thereon (Par. 0007, “The medium may include processor-readable instructions”) that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors, individually or in combination (Par. 0007, “a non-transitory processor-readable medium for a hazard detector is presented. The medium may include processor-readable instructions configured to cause one or more processors of the hazard detector to perform any or all of the above steps detailed in relation to the methods”), to respond to a threat (Par. 0030, “Hazard sensor 120 may detect smoke (as a signal that fire is present) or carbon monoxide, as two examples”) detected in a building (Par. 0047, “a structure (e.g., house, building, office, etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khire by applying the teachings of Sloo to Khire, i..e, utilizing non-transitory computer-readable media as a known form of storage that can be used to control processors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
a. Horie et al (EP 3511639 A1) discloses a control instruction reduces or stops an airflow into the zone in the building based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone.
b. Odane (CN 108870533 A) discloses a control instruction reduces or stops an airflow into the zone in the building based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone.
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 Elizabeth A Laughlin whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30-6:00 ET.
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 Hoang can be reached on (571) 272-6460. 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.
/E.A.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights