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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “calculating, based on the sensor data, occupancy information of occupants within the building”. It appears, based on at least Par. 0044 of the as-filed specification, that controller 110 uses data from sensors such as occupancy sensors 102 to calculate the occupancy information. Therefore, a controller that receives sensor data and outputs occupancy information will be considered as reading on said limitation. Claims 11 and 21 recite substantially the same limitation regarding calculating occupancy information based on sensor data; therefore, these claims will be interpreted in the same way.
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)(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, 9-12, 14, 16, 19-20 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).
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”);
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”); and
sending a control instruction (Par. 0024, “the threat controller controls at least one threat mitigator”) to a threat mitigator (Par. 0024, at least one threat mitigator) to reduce or eliminate the threat based on the occupancy information (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”).
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 one or more of: an occupant count (Par. 0067, occupant count), an occupant location (Par. 0047, occupant location), an occupant movement pattern (Par. 0047, occupant flow pattern), or an occupant mobility level (Par. 0047, occupant mobility level).
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 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), 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”) 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”).
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;
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”); and
send a control instruction (Par. 0024, “the threat controller controls at least one threat mitigator”) to a threat mitigator (Par. 0024, at least one threat mitigator) to reduce or eliminate the threat based on the occupancy information (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”).
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 one or more of: (Par. 0067, occupant count), an occupant location (Par. 0047, occupant location), an occupant movement pattern (Par. 0047, occupant flow pattern), or an occupant mobility level (Par. 0047, occupant mobility level).
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 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), 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”) 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”).
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 Perry (US20080319556A1).
Reference is made to the attached Japanese to English machine translation of Nohara ‘785.
Regarding claim 3, Khire discloses the method of claim 2, wherein 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.
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.
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).
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.
Perry discloses a control instruction (Abstract, “A device for controlling devices in a monitored space. A sensor senses an event in an initial state indicating an occupant may be present in the monitored space. A switch activates the controlled device in response to the sensed event. A processor enables the device to change from the initial state to a first state in response to the sensed event, with the first state indicating that the occupant may be in the monitored space. The device also changes from the first state to a second state while determining whether the occupant continues to be in the monitored space in response to a query challenge. The device next changes from the second state to the initial state in response to the determining indicating that the occupant is not in the monitored space. The switch deactivates the controlled device in the initial state in the monitored space.”) associated with a building (Par. 0073, building) or a zone in the building (Par. 0019, monitored space) associated with the threat (Par. 0019, fire) based on the occupancy information indicating an absence of occupants in the zone (Par. 0019, “used in security or fire safety industries in which information provided by embodiments of the invention may be used to clearly indicate the presence or absence of a subject in a monitored space”).
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 a control instruction associated with a building or a zone in the building associated with the threat based on the occupancy information indicating an absence of occupants in the zone as taught by Perry in order to increase the safety of occupants, especially the elderly and disabled (As suggested by Par. 0075 of Perry: “In this way, for example, the automation system can know which rooms are occupied...This has implications for safety and monitoring of the elderly and disabled.”), during a threat.
Regarding claim 5, Khire discloses the 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”).
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.
Perry discloses a control instruction (Abstract, “A device for controlling devices in a monitored space. A sensor senses an event in an initial state indicating an occupant may be present in the monitored space. A switch activates the controlled device in response to the sensed event. A processor enables the device to change from the initial state to a first state in response to the sensed event, with the first state indicating that the occupant may be in the monitored space. The device also changes from the first state to a second state while determining whether the occupant continues to be in the monitored space in response to a query challenge. The device next changes from the second state to the initial state in response to the determining indicating that the occupant is not in the monitored space. The switch deactivates the controlled device in the initial state in the monitored space.”) associated with a zone in a building (Par. 0073, building and Par. 0019, monitored space) based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone (Par. 0025, “in order for a room occupant to leave, s/he must move to the doorway or an exit leading out of the monitored space. This movement is detected by the IDC via its motion sensor.”).
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 a control instruction based on occupancy information indicating an occupant has moved out of a zone as taught by Perry in order to increase the safety of occupants, especially the elderly and disabled (As suggested by Par. 0075 of Perry: “In this way, for example, the automation system can know which rooms are occupied…This has implications for safety and monitoring of the elderly and disabled.”), during a threat.
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”).
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.
Perry discloses a processor (Abstract, processor) and a control instruction (Abstract, “A device for controlling devices in a monitored space. A sensor senses an event in an initial state indicating an occupant may be present in the monitored space. A switch activates the controlled device in response to the sensed event. A processor enables the device to change from the initial state to a first state in response to the sensed event, with the first state indicating that the occupant may be in the monitored space. The device also changes from the first state to a second state while determining whether the occupant continues to be in the monitored space in response to a query challenge. The device next changes from the second state to the initial state in response to the determining indicating that the occupant is not in the monitored space. The switch deactivates the controlled device in the initial state in the monitored space.”) associated with a zone in a building (Par. 0073, building and Par. 0019, monitored space) based on the occupancy information indicating the occupant has moved out of the zone (Par. 0025, “in order for a room occupant to leave, s/he must move to the doorway or an exit leading out of the monitored space. This movement is detected by the IDC via its motion sensor.”).
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 a control instruction based on occupancy information indicating an occupant has moved out of a zone as taught by Perry in order to increase the safety of occupants, especially the elderly and disabled (As suggested by Par. 0075 of Perry: “In this way, for example, the automation system can know which rooms are occupied…This has implications for safety and monitoring of the elderly and disabled.”), during a threat.
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”).
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;
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”); and
sending a control instruction (Par. 0024, “the threat controller controls at least one threat mitigator”) to a threat mitigator (Par. 0024, at least one threat mitigator) to reduce or eliminate the threat based on the occupancy information (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”).
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 know 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:
Arceneaux (US 6053809 A) discloses control instructions to direct airflow into a building or into a zone in the building associated with the threat based on an absence of occupants in the zone.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANN LAUGHLIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5924. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9:30am to 5:30pm 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