DETAILED ACTION
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Response filed on 11/26/2025.
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 . 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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final Office Action mailed 07/29/2025. Claims 1, 9, and 15 were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and are subject to the final Office Action below.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-12, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive regarding claims 1-8.
Applicant argues that the human mind cannot perform the limitation of “changing”. Examiner agrees however, the limitation of “changing” is still directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. Further, “identifying”, “determining”, and “calculating” fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to managing personal behavior/relationships/interactions between people. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “changing” includes a user moving the sensor to a different location based on the analysis of the remediation and security score. Thus, “Changing” is part of the abstract idea of organizing human activity.
Applicant argues that the claims provide an improvement to computer networking and security as the claims provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer by improving the speed and efficiency of sensor and computing device communications. Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is unclear how the speed and efficiency of sensor and computing device communications are improved and such improvements are not apparent from the claim.
Further “integration of user actions and sensor output data results in features that enable the assessment of the sensor installation location and operation” is part of the abstract idea itself as based on the user’s remediation actions and security score, the location of the sensor may be changed (by a user). See MPEP 2106.05(a) “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.”
Applicant argues that the sensors do not perform extra-solution activity because the operating parameter of the sensor is adjusted which improves the technological speed, operation, and efficiency of the security computing system. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The operating parameter of the sensor may be a location which is changed; thus, it is unclear how a location change results in technological speed, operation and efficiency improvements as the sensor is still performing necessary data gathering functions just in a different location.
Applicant again argues the changing operation of the sensor in step 2B and how the sensor is not extra-solution activity or field of use. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “Changing” involves a user moving the sensor to a different location and thus, the sensor is still performing extra-solution activity. Applicant’s argument would be more convincing if there was a mechanism for changing the sensor parameters. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained for claims 1-8 and withdrawn for claims 9-20.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 12-13, filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Baarman does not teach the limitation of “changing”. Examiner respectfully disagrees and relies upon Baarman with new reference Schwarzkopf to teach the limitation.
As Applicant noted, Baarman teaches disinfection actions and infection score are used to mitigate the spread of pathogens. The “mitigation” is achieved through changing operating parameters of various sensors/devices.
First, in paragraphs 10 and 29-30, the infection related score trajectory (“security score”) is based on the protocol deviation and potential mitigation (“remediation action”) and Baarman teaches in paragraph 30, instructing a plurality of devices within the hospital to adjust operation to alter the infection related score trajectory. Also, in paragraphs 76 and 90 dosage of UV disinfection devices is controlled and the UV disinfection dosage can be increased based on the trajectory of the score.
Additionally, in paragraph 99 air treatment data can be used to increase accuracy of infection related score trajectory – air treatment event (“remediation action”) or issues detected can be factored into the score calculations (“security score”) and upon analyzing, can issue mitigation instructions such as increasing cleaning efforts or changing characteristics such as frequency of dosage or dosage level of the air treatment systems (“operating parameter of the sensor”).
Paragraph 83 also teaches insights or recommendations such as changes to disinfection device parameters or installation of disinfection devices and paragraph 115 “For example, the DOE can recommend …, or add UV disinfection devices in a particular quantity and placement.”)
Thus, Baarman teaches “changing, based on the remediation action and the security score, an operating parameter of a sensor” and Schwarzkopf is relied upon to teach “changing the operating parameter of the sensor wherein the operating parameter comprises at least one of: a field of view (FOV), point of view (POV), a frame rate, a sleep cycle, or a location of the sensor at the zone of the building”. See rejection below for Schwarzkopf citations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, the claims all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A - Prong 1:
Independent Claim 1 recites determining a layout of a building…; identifying a security policy for a zone of the building for a period of time; generating, … an indication of a violation of the security policy; determining, based on an identity of a user, a remediation action for the user to clear the violation of the security policy; calculating, based on the security policy and an output of a sensor located at the zone of the building, a security score for the zone of the building; and changing, based on the remediation action and the security score, an operating parameter of the sensor, wherein the operating parameter comprises at least one of: a field of view (FOV), point of view (POV), a frame rate, a sleep cycle, or a location of the sensor at the zone of the building.
Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
The limitations stated above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Specifically, following rules or instructions as the “system” defines rules/instructions through a security policy for an established zone of a building, determines whether a user has violated the rules, determines a remediation action for the user to clear the violation, calculates the security score for the zone, and based on the remediation action and security score, a user may move the sensor to a different location.
Further, such processes may also be a commercial/legal interaction, specifically business relations or managing the relationship between a user who must comply with a security policy and the “system” which manages the security of the building.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Mental Processes
Additionally, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “identifying”, “determining”, and “calculating” fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Specifically, “identifying” encompasses the user creating a security policy such as “every user in Room 1 must wash their hands”. “Determining” encompasses the user determining that the user in Room 1 must wash their hands in order to clear the violation. “Calculating” encompasses the user evaluating the policy and verifying the user in Room 1 has washed their hands and setting the score for Room 1 as 1 to indicate low risk. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A - Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims recite the additional elements of a user interface implemented by a computing device and a sensor located at the zone of the building which are recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer/functions) such that when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the user interface may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (interface displayed to the user) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Further, the sensor is performing extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data. Thus, the sensor could be considered as both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
Thus, the claim as a whole, looking at additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the additional elements are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components, extra-solution activity, or field of use which does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a user interface implemented by a computing device and a sensor located at the zone of the building to perform the steps/functions recited above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Again, the user interface may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (interface displayed to the user) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
The sensor is performing extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data. Thus, the sensor could be considered as both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
Applicant’s specification paragraph 24 states “The sensor 108 may be a body worn camera, video camera, audio, radio, weapons status sensor or door sensor, and/or the like. The sensor 108 can be used to output sensed data about various areas within the building. The sensor 108 may be configured to determine, analyze, or evaluate a characteristic of a security situation within a corresponding area of the building (or for the entire building or location)”. Thus, the sensor is described in a way that shows that the sensor is widely prevalent and/or in common use. Additionally, the sensor is performing functions similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec) which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
None of the steps of Claim 1 when evaluated individually or as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements are merely used to perform the limitations directed to the abstract idea, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, extra-solution activity, or field of use, thus, the analysis does not change when considered as an ordered combination. Thus, the additional elements do not meaningfully limit the claim. Accordingly, Claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent Claim 2 specifies further that the security policy comprises determining whether the zone is open or closed and whether the access control mechanism is applicable to the zone of the building. The limitations of Claim 2 are further directed towards organizing human activity and mental processes as the rule/instruction is further defined.
Dependent Claim 3 specifies further that the user interface displays a visual indication that the zone requires the remediation action and a color scale/visual parameter varies according to a severity of the security score. The limitations of Claim 3 are further directed towards organizing human activity as the system displays to a user which zone requires remediation and further displays a color to help the user visualize the security score. Again, the user interface may be considered as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as the limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (interface displayed to the user) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Dependent Claim 4 and 5 specify further how the security score is calculated which are processes further directed towards organizing human activity and mental processes as the score is calculated based on the rate of decay/remediation action.
Dependent Claim 6 is further directed towards organizing human activity as the system displays to a user a prompt to perform the remediation action. In other words, prompting the user to perform the action in order to follow the rules.
Dependent Claim 7 is further directed towards organizing human activity as the violation of the security policy is further defined.
Dependent Claim 8 further limits what the sensor may be. The sensor (whether it is a body worn camera, video camera, audio, radio, or door sensor) is performing extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering that is limited to a particular data source or a particular type of data. Thus, the sensor could be considered as both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation.
As stated previously, Applicant’s specification paragraph 24 describes the sensor in a way that shows that the sensor is widely prevalent and/or in common use. Additionally, the sensor is performing functions similar to receiving or transmitting data over a network (Symantec) which the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, nothing in dependent claims 2-8 adds additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1-8 are ineligible.
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 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. (US 2023/0120290) in view of Andrasak et al. (US2022/0351840) in view of Schwarzkopf et al. (US2017/0180829).
As per independent Claim 1,
Baarman teaches a method comprising:
determining a layout of a building for a user interface implemented by a computing device (para. 62 the hospital facility has a plurality of different rooms and areas; para. 69 facility data includes location and layout data; figure 12 and para. 108-109 risk mitigation map zone visually depicts scores associated with the different hospital locations; figure 25 and para. 125 layout of the hospital can be provided with pathing for individual users to show exposure and transmission)
identifying a security policy for a zone of the building for a period of time (para. 8 sensor based data sources providing handwashing compliance data, surface interaction data, etc. in real time; para. 22-25 where in para. 24 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data and electronically tracking cleaning policies such as compliance with cleaning policies; para. 70 policy data refers to different policies associated with cleaning and disinfection; figure 10 and para. 105-107 where in para. 107 policies can be accessed for hand washing, terminal cleaning, cleaning service, etc.; figure 17 and para. 86 tracking various metrics to set a baseline for optimal performance; figure 18 A-B and para. 87-90 where a low score may indicate low handwashing compliance or weak policies and a high score may indicate consistent terminal cleaning schedule, high handwashing compliance; para. 91 how physical data is processed from occupancy, hand washing, general equipment, environmental services, asset tracking, air treatment, HVAC, and terminal cleaning equipment; figure 2 and para. 92 tracking room occupancy of particular room using sensors that track badges of users; figure 3 and para. 93-94 handwashing sensor which determines if a hand washing event has occurred; figure 4 and para. 95 equipment can detect touches, asset location, and room location; figure 5 and para. 96 determining whether a hospital room has been cleaned properly; figure 9 and para. 102 terminal cleaning refers to more thorough cleaning performed once patient leaves the room, detecting if the room has been terminally cleaned)
generating, via the user interface, an indication of a violation of the security policy (para. 11 receiving policy data and predicting probability of outbreak based on the policy data; para. 77 prediction of pathogen spread risk; figure 13 and para. 110-111 multiple scores by room; figure 14 and para. 111 room is shown with an infection risk score of 92; figure 12 and para. 108-109 risk mitigation map visually depicts scores associated with different locations; figure 15-16 and para. 112-114 where the rooms can be color coded based on thresholds of the score; see also para. 41)
determining a remediation action for the user to clear the violation of the security policy (para. 14-17 instructions to implement the countermeasure may include increasing amount of disinfection cycle time, augmenting room cleaning such as increasing length of time allotted for cleaning and verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 76 recommendations to mitigate infection spread such as controlling dosage of UV devices, changing policies such as cleaning frequencies; para. 83-84 staff carrying out new actions to cleaning tasks; figure 15-16 and para. 112-113 the staff member is scheduled to go to rooms 1234 and the system attempts to interrupt the staff member to have them wash their hands or perform other mitigation tasks; figure 12 and para. 109 graphical indication of a poor score which indicates it is high risk and needs infection mitigation attention promptly; figure 13 and para. 110 mitigation strategies are applied based on the severity of the scores – emergency disinfection services schedules for scores above 80, rooms at risk have restricted access, and system provides directions such as notice and instructions to increase frequency of hand washing, etc.; figure 19 and para. 82-84 recommendations from the system can be delivered and executed by staff carrying out new cleaning tasks and changes to cleaning services and schedules; para. 99 issue mitigation instructions to increase cleaning efforts by staff; see also para. 39 record user travel path data, provide alarms to indicate an infected user is approaching or in the vicinity or a particular area’s infection score is trending upward - the application can provide appropriate mitigation strategies to both infected and non-infected users for example, recommending the infected users move away from the non-infected users and vice versa and para. 117 where the application can have a user avoid an area known someone in a location is sick)
calculating, based on the security policy and an output of a sensor located at the zone of the building, a security score for the zone of the building (Figure 26 and broadly para. 126-221 where in para. 127 the score is continually recomputed to give an accurate metric relevant to a specific area in the system – higher score indicates high probability of any pathogens leaving the location and lower score indicates a lower probability of any pathogen leaving the location, the goal of the score is to measure how effective the pathogen spread mitigations are and what areas are performing better than others; para. 154-156 as handwashing events increase, risk decreases and para. 166-168 as number of terminal cleanings increase, risk decreases; para. 28 determining by experiments a healthcare protocol deviation, para. 29 determine an infection related score trajectory and adjust it based on identified healthcare protocol deviation and potential mitigation, para. 30 instructing devices to adjust operation to alter the score trajectory to a predefined infection related score within a predefined timeframe; para. 16 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 17 verifying cleaning of high touch surfaces; para. 41 end of the paragraph where the mitigation can be verified to provide a reduction in the infection score; figure 5 and para. 93-94, 96 determining if the user washed their hands properly and determining if the room was cleaned properly through use of sensors; figure 16 and para. 113 interrupt the staff member to have them wash hands or perform other mitigation tasks which can reduce the trajectory of the score; figure 8A-8B and para. 87-88 low score and high scores determined for rooms)
changing, based on the remediation action and the security score, an operating parameter of a sensor (Para. 10 infection countermeasure recommendation is based on infection related score trajectory which in turn is based on various sensor output; Para. 29 infection related score trajectory is based on healthcare protocol deviation and potential mitigation; Para. 30 instructing a plurality of devices within the hospital to adjust operation to alter the infection related score trajectory; Para. 76 and 90 controlling dosage of UV disinfection devices and the UV disinfection dosage can be increased based on the trajectory of the score; Para. 99-101 where in para. 99 air treatment data can be used to increase accuracy of infection related score trajectory – air treatment event (remediation action) or issues detected can be factored into the score calculations and upon analyzing, can issue mitigation instructions such as increasing cleaning efforts or changing characteristics such as frequency of dosage or dosage level of the air treatment systems (operating parameter of the sensor); para. 60 instructions that change policy related to disinfection devices, workers, procedures, products; figure 19 and para. 82-84 changes to disinfection device parameters or installation of disinfection devices; figure 20 and para. 85 recommendations for equipment purchases and para. 87 high scores are indicative of UV disinfection devices installed on high touch surfaces, operational air disinfection system; see also para. 115 “For example, the DOE can recommend …, or add UV disinfection devices in a particular quantity and placement.”)
Baarman does not teach, Andrasak teaches:
determining, based on an identity of a user, a remediation action for the user to clear the violation of the security policy (para. 12 risk factor score used to trigger actions like alerts and extra sanitation effort for that grid area; para. 14 identify users within the environment where each user makes a profile and the system recommends actions to mitigate the health risks where the actions may be performed by the users; para. 15 if a first event occurred in the first section, then a notification is provided to a second user device to avoid the first section and a notification is provided to a custodian to perform actions to reduce the health risk; para. 16-17 alert the users about the health risk event; para. 20 one of the actions performed to mitigate is a sanitizing event and a sanitizing service is dispatched to the section where the event was detected; para. 43 action items such as sanitizing the section, closing off the section, or other activity; para. 20-21 if a cough event was detected in the first section and the processor detected that the sanitizing event has occurred in the first section, then the risk factor score is updated to 1)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Andrasak with the motivation of reducing the score by assigning a custodian to mitigate the health risk.
See para. 20 “detect a sanitizing event as one of the actions to be performed to mitigate the event associated with an elevated health risk. Further, the one or more processors may be configured to generate an action item corresponding to dispatching a sanitizing service to the section of the open space environment where the elevated health risk event was detected. Once dispatched, the one or more processors may be configured to reduce the risk factor score by a predetermined amount in response to determining that the sanitizing event has occurred.”
Examiner noting that Baarman suggests that in para. 115 “For example, the DOE can recommend increasing surfacide score by a particular percentage, increase air circulation by a certain amount, or add UV disinfection devices in a particular quantity and placement. In short, this example shows a statistical implementation of a disinfection tracking network. differences between rooms/groups to show statistically significant swabbing data points. In this particular example, the next best action learnings include purchasing air disinfection devices versus UV-C low dosage disinfection devices.”
Baarman/Andrasak does not teach, but Schwarzkopf teaches:
changing an operating parameter of the sensor, wherein the operating parameter comprises at least one of: a field of view (FOV), point of view (POV), a frame rate, a sleep cycle, or a location of the sensor at the zone of the building (para. 50-51 for context of invention where sensors are used to track and predict potential points of liability at a desired location and the data is used for analysis and alerts; para. 55 communicate a command to sensor or system to prevent/mitigate damages or improvement of safety; para. 56-57, 59-61 various machinery may be controlled; para. 71-75 where in para. 75 system/controller may instruct one or more base units to enter various modes of operation such as keeping one or more sensor types in an OFF state or lower power mode by default (“sleep cycle”); figure 9 and para. 135-145 where in para. 136 “Such associations may also assist system users in setting up operations at a new site and/or reconfiguring operations at an existing site. For example, the database associations may assist system users in selecting the number, type, location, and/or operating mode of one or more base units 01, sensors and sensor arrays 20, 23, 24, 424, peripherals 30, and/or other connected system components” (“location”))
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Schwarzkopf with the motivation of improving efficiency in mitigating unsafe conditions/damages.
See para. 55 “Actions generated or performed by the software platform, base unit(s) 01, and external sensor unit(s) 23 and/or external sensor arrays 424 may result in the prevention or mitigation of damages to the site and on-site equipment, improvement of safety of on-site personnel, improvement of contractor logistics, reduction of timeline, or other improved efficiencies”; para. 75 “The system or a controller 18 may instruct one or more components of one or more base units to enter various modes of operation in order to make the system operate more efficiently”; and para. 136 “Such associations may also assist system users in setting up operations at a new site and/or reconfiguring operations at an existing site.”
As per dependent Claim 3,
Baarman/Andrasak/Schwarzkopf teaches the method of claim 1.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein generating the indication of the violation of the security policy comprises generating a visual indication on the user interface that the zone of the building requires the remediation action, wherein a color scale or visual parameter for the visual indication varies according to a severity of the security score (figure 12 and para. 108-109 risk mitigation map visually depicts scores associated with different locations and color can be used to visually distinguish different scores; figure 15-16 and para. 112-114 where the rooms can be color coded based on thresholds of the score; see also para. 41, 110-111 where thresholds indicate a severity)
As per dependent Claim 4,
Baarman/Andrasak/Schwarzkopf teaches the method of claim 1.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein calculating the security score comprises: verifying that the remediation action has been taken by the user (para. 16 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 17 verifying cleaning of high touch surfaces; para. 41 end of the paragraph where the mitigation can be verified to provide a reduction in the infection score; figure 5 and para. 96 determining if the room was cleaned properly; figure 16 and para. 113 interrupt the staff member to have them wash hands or perform other mitigation tasks which can reduce the trajectory of the score; figure 25 and para. 125 where weighting of the score reduction depends on the person or employee such as if they have good hygiene practices or bad practices or scores; see also para. 117 where the application can have a user avoid an area known someone in a location is sick and para. 39 where the application provides recommendations such as pathing/moving away from infected users)
Baarman does not teach, but Andrasak further teaches:
determining a score for the remediation action (para. 6 and 13 dispatching one or more resources and decreasing the risk factor score by a predetermined value associated with the one or more resources; para. 20 once the processor detects that a sanitizing event has occurred, then the risk factor score is decreased from 5 to 1 – thus, the score for the remediation action (sanitizing event) is 4; see also para. 45 and 49-50)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Andrasak with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of the security score by accounting for “one or more events that reduces the risk factor score over time” (para. 49) and “dispatching one or more resources to the one or more sections where the one or more events occurred and decreasing the risk factor score for the one or more sections by a predetermined value associated with the one or more resources” (para. 52 of Andrasak).
As per dependent Claim 5,
Baarman/Andrasak/Schwarzkopf teaches the method of claim 1.
Baarman does not teach, but Andrasak further teaches:
wherein calculating the security score comprises determining a rate of decay of a security score of the zone of the building corresponding to the security policy, wherein the rate of decay is proportional to a severity or a threshold time since a check in of the zone of the building (Para. 19 time weight is applied to the risk factor score where the time weight reduces the risk factor score over time; para. 20 once the sanitizing event has occurred, then the risk factor score is decreased from 5 to 1 and would be reduced to 0 after 15 minutes due to the time weight reduction; see also para. 45 and 49)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Andrasak with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of the security score by accounting for “one or more events that reduces the risk factor score over time” (para. 49 of Andrasak).
As per dependent Claim 6,
Baarman/Andrasak/Schwarzkopf teaches the method of claim 1.
Baarman further teaches:
prompting, via the user interface, the user to perform the remediation action (figure 12 and para. 109 graphical indication of a poor score which indicates it is high risk and needs infection mitigation attention promptly; figure 13 and para. 110 mitigation strategies are applied based on the severity of the scores – emergency disinfection services schedules for scores above 80, rooms at risk have restricted access, and system provides directions such as notice and instructions to increase frequency of hand washing, etc.; para. 113 interrupt the staff member to have them wash hands or perform other mitigation tasks; figure 19 and para. 82-84 recommendations from the system can be delivered and executed by staff carrying out new cleaning tasks and changes to cleaning services and schedules; para. 99 issue mitigation instructions to increase cleaning efforts by staff; see also para. 117 where the application can have a user avoid an area known someone in a location is sick and para. 39 where the application provides recommendations such as pathing/moving away from infected users)
As per dependent Claim 7,
Baarman/Andrasak/Schwarzkopf teaches the method of claim 1.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein the violation of the security policy comprises at least one of a: door in the zone being propped open, malfunctioning sensor or equipment associated with the zone, duration of time, obstructed camera, presence of an unauthorized entrant, number of security reviews not meeting a threshold, or number of security policy updates not meeting the threshold (para. 16 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 17 verifying cleaning of high touch surfaces; para. 41 end of the paragraph where the mitigation can be verified to provide a reduction in the infection score; figure 5 and para. 96 determining if the room was cleaned properly involves logging cleaning time and comparing cleaning time to an expected cleaning time threshold amount and if the cleaning time is below the threshold, the room can be flagged as not being cleaned properly; para. 68 cleaning data includes cleaning times, verification testing results, handwashing compliance data from handwashing sensor data)
As per dependent Claim 8,
Baarman/Andrasak/Schwarzkopf teaches the method of claim 1.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a: body worn camera, video camera, audio, radio, or door sensor (para. 16 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 17 verifying cleaning of high touch surfaces; para. 40 sensor data that is directly linked to pathogen level are how often a hospital room is cleaned, cleaning verification procedures, etc.; para. 68 cleaning data includes cleaning times, verification testing results, handwashing compliance data from handwashing sensor data; figure 2-3 and para. 92-94 where occupancy sensor and handwashing sensor are used; figure 5 and para. 96 determining if the room was cleaned properly through sensors on objects, line of sight sensors, microphones, etc.; see also para. 71 door sensors, cameras, imaging sensors, line of sight sensors, para. 123 audio tracking system used as occupancy detection device)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. (US 2023/0120290) in view of Andrasak et al. (US2022/0351840) in view of Schwarzkopf et al. (US2017/0180829) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Coles (US 2020/0225313).
As per dependent Claim 2,
Baarman/Andrasak/Schwarzkopf teaches the method of claim 1.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein identifying the security policy comprises determining whether the zone of the building is open or closed (para. 90 countermeasure to reduce pathogen spread includes changing access policies to limit exposure; figure 13 and para. 110 rooms may have restricted access to prevent further exposure and a policy change may be implemented where visitors cannot enter this portion of the hospital wing
Baarman/Andrasak/Schwarzkopf does not teach, but Coles teaches:
a corresponding access control mechanism is applicable to the zone of the building (figure 16 and para. 45 and 263-264 automatically locking a door in a building during a dangerous event which can be implemented in one or more pods; para. 105-109 where in para. 105 the locking mechanisms can lock/unlock doors and automatically lock doors associated with the danger zone)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Coles a corresponding access control mechanism is applicable to the zone of the building with the motivation of increasing user safety by allowing an administrator to lock/unlock specific doors in order to restrict user movement in dangerous areas. See Coles para. 105-109.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. (US 2023/0120290) in view of Andrasak et al. (US2022/0351840) in view of Glenn et al. (US2009/0267776) in view of Schwarzkopf et al. (US2017/0180829).
As per independent Claim 9,
Baarman teaches a system comprising:
a sensor configured to output sensed data about a zone of a building (para. 16 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 17 verifying cleaning of high touch surfaces; para. 40 sensor data that is directly linked to pathogen level are how often a hospital room is cleaned, cleaning verification procedures, etc.; para. 68 cleaning data includes cleaning times, verification testing results, handwashing compliance data from handwashing sensor data; figure 2-3 and para. 92-94 where occupancy sensor and handwashing sensor are used; figure 5 and para. 96 determining if the room was cleaned properly through sensors on objects, line of sight sensors, microphones, etc.; see also para. 71 door sensors, cameras, imaging sensors, line of sight sensors, para. 123 audio tracking system used as occupancy detection device)
a user device that comprises a user interface indicative of a security policy for the zone of the building (para. 76-77 user interface can present information on infection insights and predictions as well as mitigating actions; figure 12-16 and para. 108-113 where each room’s score is monitored; see also para. 96)
a processor communicatively coupled to the sensor and the user device, wherein the processor is configured to: (para. 225-226 processor)
determine a layout of the zone of the building for output to the user interface (para. 62 the hospital facility has a plurality of different rooms and areas; para. 69 facility data includes location and layout data; figure 12 and para. 108-109 risk mitigation map zone visually depicts scores associated with the different hospital locations; figure 25 and para. 125 layout of the hospital can be provided with pathing for individual users to show exposure and transmission)
identify a security policy for the zone of the building for a period of time (para. 8 sensor based data sources providing handwashing compliance data, surface interaction data, etc. in real time; para. 22-25 where in para. 24 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data and electronically tracking cleaning policies such as compliance with cleaning policies; para. 70 policy data refers to different policies associated with cleaning and disinfection; figure 10 and para. 105-107 where in para. 107 policies can be accessed for hand washing, terminal cleaning, cleaning service, etc.; figure 17 and para. 86 tracking various metrics to set a baseline for optimal performance; figure 18 A-B and para. 87-90 where a low score may indicate low handwashing compliance or weak policies and a high score may indicate consistent terminal cleaning schedule, high handwashing compliance; para. 91 how physical data is processed from occupancy, hand washing, general equipment, environmental services, asset tracking, air treatment, HVAC, and terminal cleaning equipment; figure 2 and para. 92 tracking room occupancy of particular room using sensors that track badges of users; figure 3 and para. 93-94 handwashing sensor which determines if a hand washing event has occurred; figure 4 and para. 95 equipment can detect touches, asset location, and room location; figure 5 and para. 96 determining whether a hospital room has been cleaned properly; figure 9 and para. 102 terminal cleaning refers to more thorough cleaning performed once patient leaves the room, detecting if the room has been terminally cleaned)
generate, via the user interface, an indication of a violation of the security policy (para. 11 receiving policy data and predicting probability of outbreak based on the policy data; para. 77 prediction of pathogen spread risk; figure 13 and para. 110-111 multiple scores by room; figure 14 and para. 111 room is shown with an infection risk score of 92; figure 12 and para. 108-109 risk mitigation map visually depicts scores associated with different locations; figure 15-16 and para. 112-114 where the rooms can be color coded based on thresholds of the score; see also para. 41)
determine a remediation action to perform for the zone of the building (para. 14-17 instructions to implement the countermeasure may include increasing amount of disinfection cycle time, augmenting room cleaning such as increasing length of time allotted for cleaning and verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 76 recommendations to mitigate infection spread such as controlling dosage of UV devices, changing policies such as cleaning frequencies; para. 83-84 staff carrying out new actions to cleaning tasks; figure 15-16 and para. 112-113 the staff member is scheduled to go to rooms 1234 and the system attempts to interrupt the staff member to have them wash their hands or perform other mitigation tasks; figure 12 and para. 109 graphical indication of a poor score which indicates it is high risk and needs infection mitigation attention promptly; figure 13 and para. 110 mitigation strategies are applied based on the severity of the scores – emergency disinfection services schedules for scores above 80, rooms at risk have restricted access, and system provides directions such as notice and instructions to increase frequency of hand washing, etc.; figure 19 and para. 82-84 recommendations from the system can be delivered and executed by staff carrying out new cleaning tasks and changes to cleaning services and schedules; para. 99 issue mitigation instructions to increase cleaning efforts by staff; see also para. 39 record user travel path data, provide alarms to indicate an infected user is approaching or in the vicinity or a particular area’s infection score is trending upward - the application can provide appropriate mitigation strategies to both infected and non-infected users for example, recommending the infected users move away from the non-infected users and vice versa and para. 117 where the application can have a user avoid an area known someone in a location is sick)
calculate, based on the sensed data, a security score for the zone of the building (Figure 26 and broadly para. 126-221 where in para. 127 the score is continually recomputed to give an accurate metric relevant to a specific area in the system – higher score indicates high probability of any pathogens leaving the location and lower score indicates a lower probability of any pathogen leaving the location, the goal of the score is to measure how effective the pathogen spread mitigations are and what areas are performing better than others; para. 154-156 as handwashing events increase, risk decreases and para. 166-168 as number of terminal cleanings increase, risk decreases; para. 28 determining by experiments a healthcare protocol deviation, para. 29 determine an infection related score trajectory and adjust it based on identified healthcare protocol deviation and potential mitigation, para. 30 instructing devices to adjust operation to alter the score trajectory to a predefined infection related score within a predefined timeframe; para. 16 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 17 verifying cleaning of high touch surfaces; para. 41 end of the paragraph where the mitigation can be verified to provide a reduction in the infection score; figure 5 and para. 93-94, 96 determining if the user washed their hands properly and determining if the room was cleaned properly through use of sensors; figure 16 and para. 113 interrupt the staff member to have them wash hands or perform other mitigation tasks which can reduce the trajectory of the score; figure 8A-8B and para. 87-88 low score and high scores determined for rooms)
change, based on the security score, an operating parameter of a sensor (Para. 10 infection countermeasure recommendation is based on infection related score trajectory which in turn is based on various sensor output; Para. 29 infection related score trajectory is based on healthcare protocol deviation and potential mitigation; Para. 30 instructing a plurality of devices within the hospital to adjust operation to alter the infection related score trajectory; Para. 76 and 90 controlling dosage of UV disinfection devices and the UV disinfection dosage can be increased based on the trajectory of the score; Para. 99-101 where in para. 99 air treatment data can be used to increase accuracy of infection related score trajectory – air treatment event or issues detected can be factored into the score calculations and upon analyzing, can issue mitigation instructions such as increasing cleaning efforts or changing characteristics such as frequency of dosage or dosage level of the air treatment systems (operating parameter of the sensor); para. 60 instructions that change policy related to disinfection devices, workers, procedures, products; figure 19 and para. 82-84 changes to disinfection device parameters or installation of disinfection devices; figure 20 and para. 85 recommendations for equipment purchases and para. 87 high scores are indicative of UV disinfection devices installed on high touch surfaces, operational air disinfection system; see also para. 115 “For example, the DOE can recommend …, or add UV disinfection devices in a particular quantity and placement.”)
Baarman does not teach, Andrasak teaches:
determine a reward based on a verification via the sensed data from the sensor that the user performed the remediation action to clear the violation of the security policy; calculate, based on the reward and the sensed data, a security score for the zone of the building (para. 6 and 13 dispatching one or more resources and decreasing the risk factor score by a predetermined value associated with the one or more resources; para. 20 once the processor detects that a sanitizing event has occurred, then the processors may reduce the risk factor score by a predetermined amount for the first section – thus, the reward is 4 and the security score for the zone (based on the reward = 4 and the detection of the sanitizing event) is 1; see also para. 45 and 49-50)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Andrasak with the motivation of reducing the score by assigning a custodian to mitigate the health risk.
See para. 20 “detect a sanitizing event as one of the actions to be performed to mitigate the event associated with an elevated health risk. Further, the one or more processors may be configured to generate an action item corresponding to dispatching a sanitizing service to the section of the open space environment where the elevated health risk event was detected. Once dispatched, the one or more processors may be configured to reduce the risk factor score by a predetermined amount in response to determining that the sanitizing event has occurred.”
Examiner noting that Andrasak teaches determining, based on an identity of the user, a remediation action for a user to clear the violation of the security policy (para. 12 risk factor score used to trigger actions like alerts and extra sanitation effort for that grid area; para. 14 identify users within the environment where each user makes a profile and the system recommends actions to mitigate the health risks where the actions may be performed by the users; para. 15 if a first event occurred in the first section, then a notification is provided to a second user device to avoid the first section and a notification is provided to a custodian to perform actions to reduce the health risk).
Baarman/Andrasak does not explicitly teach, but Glenn teaches:
determine a remediation action that an identity of a user indicates the user is permitted to perform for the zone of the building (para. 107 the minimum time may depend on the employee’s job duties and their past noncompliance; para. 113-114 user may be an employee/visitor who is required to wash their hands because of the nature of their work/facility and the RFID reader reads the user’s identity; para. 121 monitoring handwashing requirements that are specific to each employee as some employees have stricter requirements as to the amount of time and frequency that the employee is required to wash their hands and washing requirements dependent on the employee’s history of compliance; figure 5B and para. 127 where a particular cleaning protocol may be applied to a particular employee depending on the employee type – for example a nurse may be permitted to use only a CHG wash while a doctor has to use CHG wash and an alcohol wipe; para. 147-148 hygiene violation is cleared by the user washing their hands)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Glenn with the motivation of increasing efficiency by selectively enforcing policies. See para. 121 “Some employees may have stricter hand washing requirements than others at the same facility. For example, a hospital emergency room may employ both surgeons and social workers. As can be appreciated, the surgeons will be required to wash their hands more frequently and more thoroughly than the social workers… employee records may contain other hand washing compliance data that is specific to each employee such as the amount of time and/or frequency that an employee is required to wash his or her hands. Washing requirements may also depend on an employee's history of compliance with his or her washing requirements.”
Examiner noting that Baarman suggests the limitation in para. 115 “For example, the DOE can recommend increasing surfacide score by a particular percentage, increase air circulation by a certain amount, or add UV disinfection devices in a particular quantity and placement. In short, this example shows a statistical implementation of a disinfection tracking network. differences between rooms/groups to show statistically significant swabbing data points. In this particular example, the next best action learnings include purchasing air disinfection devices versus UV-C low dosage disinfection devices.”
Baarman/Andrasak/Glenn does not teach, but Schwarzkopf teaches:
change an operating parameter of the sensor, wherein the operating parameter comprises at least one of: a field of view (FOV), point of view (POV), a frame rate, a sleep cycle, or a location of the sensor at the zone of the building (para. 50-51 for context of invention where sensors are used to track and predict potential points of liability at a desired location and the data is used for analysis and alerts; para. 55 communicate a command to sensor or system to prevent/mitigate damages or improvement of safety; para. 56-57, 59-61 various machinery may be controlled; para. 71-75 where in para. 75 system/controller may instruct one or more base units to enter various modes of operation such as keeping one or more sensor types in an OFF state or lower power mode by default (“sleep cycle”); figure 9 and para. 135-145 where in para. 136 “Such associations may also assist system users in setting up operations at a new site and/or reconfiguring operations at an existing site. For example, the database associations may assist system users in selecting the number, type, location, and/or operating mode of one or more base units 01, sensors and sensor arrays 20, 23, 24, 424, peripherals 30, and/or other connected system components” (“location”))
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Schwarzkopf with the motivation of improving efficiency in mitigating unsafe conditions/damages. See para. 55, para. 75, and para. 136.
As per dependent Claim 10,
Baarman/Andrasak/Glenn/Schwarzkopf teaches the system of Claim 9.
Baarman does not teach, but Andrasak further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the security policy by determining a rate of decay of a security score of the zone of the building corresponding to the security policy, wherein the rate of decay is proportional to a severity or a threshold time since a check in of the zone of the building (Para. 19 time weight is applied to the risk factor score where the time weight reduces the risk factor score over time; para. 20 once the sanitizing event has occurred, then the risk factor score is decreased from 5 to 1 and would be reduced to 0 after 15 minutes due to the time weight reduction; see also para. 45 and 49)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Andrasak with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of the security score by accounting for “one or more events that reduces the risk factor score over time” (para. 49 of Andrasak).
As per dependent Claim 11,
Baarman/Andrasak/Glenn/Schwarzkopf teaches the system of Claim 9.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to generate the indication of the violation by generating a flashing visual indication or color to indicate that the remediation action is required by the security policy, wherein the flashing visual indication or the color varies according to the severity of the security score (figure 12 and para. 108-109 risk mitigation map visually depicts scores associated with different locations and color can be used to visually distinguish different scores; figure 15-16 and para. 112-114 where the rooms can be color coded based on thresholds of the score; see also para. 41, 110-111 where thresholds indicate a severity)
As per dependent Claim 12,
Baarman/Andrasak/Glenn/Schwarzkopf teaches the system of Claim 9.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to determine the remediation action by determining at least one of: an urgency of the violation of the security policy, a skill tree or achievement parameter associated with the user, an age or role of the user, or a location of the sensor (figure 12 and para. 109 graphical indication of a poor score which indicates it is high risk and needs infection mitigation attention promptly; figure 13 and para. 110 mitigation strategies are applied based on the severity of the scores – emergency disinfection services schedules for scores above 80, rooms at risk have restricted access, and system provides directions such as notice and instructions to increase frequency of hand washing, etc.; para. 113 interrupt the staff member to have them wash hands or perform other mitigation tasks; figure 19 and para. 82-84 recommendations from the system can be delivered and executed by staff carrying out new cleaning tasks and changes to cleaning services and schedules; para. 99 issue mitigation instructions to increase cleaning efforts by staff; see also para. 117 where the application can have a user avoid an area known someone in a location is sick and para. 39 where the application provides recommendations such as pathing/moving away from infected users)
As per dependent Claim 13,
Baarman/Andrasak/Glenn/Schwarzkopf teaches the system of Claim 9.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein the violation of the security policy comprises at least one of a: door in the zone being propped open, malfunctioning sensor or equipment associated with the zone, duration of time, obstructed camera, presence of an unauthorized entrant, number of security reviews not meeting a threshold, or number of security policy updates not meeting the threshold (para. 16 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 17 verifying cleaning of high touch surfaces; para. 41 end of the paragraph where the mitigation can be verified to provide a reduction in the infection score; figure 5 and para. 96 determining if the room was cleaned properly involves logging cleaning time and comparing cleaning time to an expected cleaning time threshold amount and if the cleaning time is below the threshold, the room can be flagged as not being cleaned properly; para. 68 cleaning data includes cleaning times, verification testing results, handwashing compliance data from handwashing sensor data)
As per dependent Claim 14,
Baarman/Andrasak/Glenn/Schwarzkopf teaches the system of Claim 9.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein the user interface comprises a building management dashboard that indicates whether the user has violated or is in compliance with another security policy (figure 12 and para. 108-109 scores at each room indicate the room needs additional augmented cleaning and room 1204 has a score of 87 indicating it is high risk and needs mitigation attention promptly; figure 13 and para. 110 multiple scores by room; figure 14 and para. 111 room is shown with an infection risk score of 92 as the scores have been filtered to those above a threshold for dealing with emergency threat levels by staff; figure 15-16 and para. 112-114 where the rooms can be color coded based on thresholds of the score and in para. 113 specifically, “if a staff member has a high probability of transferring pathogens and moves from the high risk area 1230 to the other rooms 1232, then due to other information about employee-scheduled rounds, they know that a staff member is scheduled to go to rooms 1234, which is why the trajectory is showing the score will increase”; see also para. 41)
wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a: body worn camera, video camera, audio, radio, or door sensor (para. 16 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 17 verifying cleaning of high touch surfaces; para. 40 sensor data that is directly linked to pathogen level are how often a hospital room is cleaned, cleaning verification procedures, etc.; para. 68 cleaning data includes cleaning times, verification testing results, handwashing compliance data from handwashing sensor data; figure 2-3 and para. 92-94 where occupancy sensor and handwashing sensor are used; figure 5 and para. 96 determining if the room was cleaned properly through sensors on objects, line of sight sensors, microphones, etc.; see also para. 71 door sensors, cameras, imaging sensors, line of sight sensors, para. 123 audio tracking system used as occupancy detection device)
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. (US 2023/0120290) in view of Glenn et al. (US2009/0267776) in view of Schwarzkopf et al. (US2017/0180829).
As per independent Claim 15,
Baarman teaches a computing device comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to perform a set of operations comprising: (para. 225-226)
determining a layout of a building for a user interface implemented by a computing device (para. 62 the hospital facility has a plurality of different rooms and areas; para. 69 facility data includes location and layout data; figure 12 and para. 108-109 risk mitigation map zone visually depicts scores associated with the different hospital locations; figure 25 and para. 125 layout of the hospital can be provided with pathing for individual users to show exposure and transmission)
identifying a security policy for a zone of the building for a period of time (para. 8 sensor based data sources providing handwashing compliance data, surface interaction data, etc. in real time; para. 22-25 where in para. 24 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data and electronically tracking cleaning policies such as compliance with cleaning policies; para. 70 policy data refers to different policies associated with cleaning and disinfection; figure 10 and para. 105-107 where in para. 107 policies can be accessed for hand washing, terminal cleaning, cleaning service, etc.; figure 17 and para. 86 tracking various metrics to set a baseline for optimal performance; figure 18 A-B and para. 87-90 where a low score may indicate low handwashing compliance or weak policies and a high score may indicate consistent terminal cleaning schedule, high handwashing compliance; para. 91 how physical data is processed from occupancy, hand washing, general equipment, environmental services, asset tracking, air treatment, HVAC, and terminal cleaning equipment; figure 2 and para. 92 tracking room occupancy of particular room using sensors that track badges of users; figure 3 and para. 93-94 handwashing sensor which determines if a hand washing event has occurred; figure 4 and para. 95 equipment can detect touches, asset location, and room location; figure 5 and para. 96 determining whether a hospital room has been cleaned properly; figure 9 and para. 102 terminal cleaning refers to more thorough cleaning performed once patient leaves the room, detecting if the room has been terminally cleaned)
generating, via the user interface, an indication of a violation of the security policy (para. 11 receiving policy data and predicting probability of outbreak based on the policy data; para. 77 prediction of pathogen spread risk; figure 13 and para. 110-111 multiple scores by room; figure 14 and para. 111 room is shown with an infection risk score of 92; figure 12 and para. 108-109 risk mitigation map visually depicts scores associated with different locations; figure 15-16 and para. 112-114 where the rooms can be color coded based on thresholds of the score; see also para. 41)
determining, based on an output of a sensor located at the zone of the building, a remediation action for a user to clear the violation of the security policy (para. 10 and 33 score can be calculated based on sensor data; para. 40 score can be related to sensor data for a particular location; figure 13 and para. 110 mitigation strategies are applied based on the severity of the scores – emergency disinfection services schedules for scores above 80, rooms at risk have restricted access, and system provides directions such as notice and instructions to increase frequency of hand washing, etc.; para. 14-17 instructions to implement the countermeasure may include increasing amount of disinfection cycle time, augmenting room cleaning such as increasing length of time allotted for cleaning and verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 76 recommendations to mitigate infection spread such as controlling dosage of UV devices, changing policies such as cleaning frequencies; para. 83-84 staff carrying out new actions to cleaning tasks; figure 15-16 and para. 112-113 the staff member is scheduled to go to rooms 1234 and the system attempts to interrupt the staff member to have them wash their hands or perform other mitigation tasks; figure 12 and para. 109 graphical indication of a poor score which indicates it is high risk and needs infection mitigation attention promptly; figure 19 and para. 82-84 recommendations from the system can be delivered and executed by staff carrying out new cleaning tasks and changes to cleaning services and schedules; para. 99 issue mitigation instructions to increase cleaning efforts by staff; see also para. 39 record user travel path data, provide alarms to indicate an infected user is approaching or in the vicinity or a particular area’s infection score is trending upward - the application can provide appropriate mitigation strategies to both infected and non-infected users for example, recommending the infected users move away from the non-infected users and vice versa and para. 117 where the application can have a user avoid an area known someone in a location is sick)
calculating, according to the remediation action, a security score for the zone of the building (Figure 26 and broadly para. 126-221 where in para. 127 the score is continually recomputed to give an accurate metric relevant to a specific area in the system – higher score indicates high probability of any pathogens leaving the location and lower score indicates a lower probability of any pathogen leaving the location, the goal of the score is to measure how effective the pathogen spread mitigations are and what areas are performing better than others; para. 154-156 as handwashing events increase, risk decreases and para. 166-168 as number of terminal cleanings increase, risk decreases; para. 28 determining by experiments a healthcare protocol deviation, para. 29 determine an infection related score trajectory and adjust it based on identified healthcare protocol deviation and potential mitigation, para. 30 instructing devices to adjust operation to alter the score trajectory to a predefined infection related score within a predefined timeframe; para. 16 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 17 verifying cleaning of high touch surfaces; para. 41 end of the paragraph where the mitigation can be verified to provide a reduction in the infection score; figure 5 and para. 93-94, 96 determining if the user washed their hands properly and determining if the room was cleaned properly through use of sensors; figure 16 and para. 113 interrupt the staff member to have them wash hands or perform other mitigation tasks which can reduce the trajectory of the score; figure 8A-8B and para. 87-88 low score and high scores determined for rooms)
changing, based on the security score, an operating parameter of a sensor (Para. 10 infection countermeasure recommendation is based on infection related score trajectory which in turn is based on various sensor output; Para. 29 infection related score trajectory is based on healthcare protocol deviation and potential mitigation; Para. 30 instructing a plurality of devices within the hospital to adjust operation to alter the infection related score trajectory; Para. 76 and 90 controlling dosage of UV disinfection devices and the UV disinfection dosage can be increased based on the trajectory of the score; Para. 99-101 where in para. 99 air treatment data can be used to increase accuracy of infection related score trajectory – air treatment event or issues detected can be factored into the score calculations and upon analyzing, can issue mitigation instructions such as increasing cleaning efforts or changing characteristics such as frequency of dosage or dosage level of the air treatment systems (operating parameter of the sensor); para. 60 instructions that change policy related to disinfection devices, workers, procedures, products; figure 19 and para. 82-84 changes to disinfection device parameters or installation of disinfection devices; figure 20 and para. 85 recommendations for equipment purchases and para. 87 high scores are indicative of UV disinfection devices installed on high touch surfaces, operational air disinfection system; see also para. 115 “For example, the DOE can recommend …, or add UV disinfection devices in a particular quantity and placement.”)
Baarman does not teach, Glenn teaches:
determining, based on a skill attribute of a user, a remediation action for a user to clear the violation of the security policy (para. 107 the minimum time may depend on the employee’s job duties and their past noncompliance; para. 113-114 user may be an employee/visitor who is required to wash their hands because of the nature of their work/facility and the RFID reader reads the user’s identity; para. 121 monitoring handwashing requirements that are specific to each employee as some employees have stricter requirements as to the amount of time and frequency that the employee is required to wash their hands and washing requirements dependent on the employee’s history of compliance; figure 5B and para. 127 where a particular cleaning protocol may be applied to a particular employee depending on the employee type; para. 147-148 hygiene violation is cleared by the user washing their hands)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Glenn with the motivation of increasing efficiency by selectively enforcing policies. See para. 121 “Some employees may have stricter hand washing requirements than others at the same facility. For example, a hospital emergency room may employ both surgeons and social workers. As can be appreciated, the surgeons will be required to wash their hands more frequently and more thoroughly than the social workers… employee records may contain other hand washing compliance data that is specific to each employee such as the amount of time and/or frequency that an employee is required to wash his or her hands. Washing requirements may also depend on an employee's history of compliance with his or her washing requirements.”
Examiner noting that Baarman suggests the limitation in para. 115 “For example, the DOE can recommend increasing surfacide score by a particular percentage, increase air circulation by a certain amount, or add UV disinfection devices in a particular quantity and placement. In short, this example shows a statistical implementation of a disinfection tracking network. differences between rooms/groups to show statistically significant swabbing data points. In this particular example, the next best action learnings include purchasing air disinfection devices versus UV-C low dosage disinfection devices.”
Baarman/Glenn does not teach, but Schwarzkopf teaches:
changing an operating parameter of the sensor, wherein the operating parameter comprises at least one of: a field of view (FOV), point of view (POV), a frame rate, a sleep cycle, or a location of the sensor at the zone of the building (para. 50-51 for context of invention where sensors are used to track and predict potential points of liability at a desired location and the data is used for analysis and alerts; para. 55 communicate a command to sensor or system to prevent/mitigate damages or improvement of safety; para. 56-57, 59-61 various machinery may be controlled; para. 71-75 where in para. 75 system/controller may instruct one or more base units to enter various modes of operation such as keeping one or more sensor types in an OFF state or lower power mode by default (“sleep cycle”); figure 9 and para. 135-145 where in para. 136 “Such associations may also assist system users in setting up operations at a new site and/or reconfiguring operations at an existing site. For example, the database associations may assist system users in selecting the number, type, location, and/or operating mode of one or more base units 01, sensors and sensor arrays 20, 23, 24, 424, peripherals 30, and/or other connected system components” (“location”))
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Schwarzkopf with the motivation of improving efficiency in mitigating unsafe conditions/damages. See para. 55, para. 75, and para. 136.
As per dependent Claim 16,
Baarman/Glenn/Schwarzkopf teaches the computing device of claim 15.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein the set of operations comprising identifying the security policy comprise determining whether the zone of the building is open or closed (para. 90 countermeasure to reduce pathogen spread includes changing access policies to limit exposure; figure 13 and para. 110 rooms may have restricted access to prevent further exposure and a policy change may be implemented where visitors cannot enter this portion of the hospital wing)
Baarman does not teach, but Glenn teaches:
a corresponding access control mechanism is applicable to the zone of the building (para. 328 where doors to different areas may be disabled if the user fails to comply with hygiene protocols; para. 257-258 where there is a locking mechanism on the door which prevents users from passing through)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Glenn with the motivation of increasing user/facility safety by disabling specific doors in order to restrict users who are in violation of the policy. See para. 328.
As per dependent Claim 17,
Baarman/Glenn/Schwarzkopf teaches the computing device of claim 15.
Baarman does not teach, but Glenn further teaches:
determining the remediation action comprise determining a level of the skill attribute (para. 107 the minimum time may depend on the employee’s job duties and their past noncompliance; para. 113-114 user may be an employee/visitor who is required to wash their hands because of the nature of their work/facility and the RFID reader reads the user’s identity; para. 121 monitoring handwashing requirements that are specific to each employee as some employees have stricter requirements as to the amount of time and frequency that the employee is required to wash their hands and washing requirements dependent on the employee’s history of compliance; figure 5B and para. 127 where a particular cleaning protocol may be applied to a particular employee depending on the employee type – for example “1” refers to a nurse and may require a CHG wash and “3” refers to a doctor and may require a CHG wash followed by alcohol wipe)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Glenn with the motivation of increasing efficiency by selectively enforcing policies. See para. 121 “Some employees may have stricter hand washing requirements than others at the same facility. For example, a hospital emergency room may employ both surgeons and social workers. As can be appreciated, the surgeons will be required to wash their hands more frequently and more thoroughly than the social workers… employee records may contain other hand washing compliance data that is specific to each employee such as the amount of time and/or frequency that an employee is required to wash his or her hands. Washing requirements may also depend on an employee's history of compliance with his or her washing requirements.”
As per dependent Claim 20,
Baarman/Glenn/Schwarzkopf teaches the computing device of claim 15.
Baarman further teaches:
wherein the sensor comprises at least one of a: body worn camera, video camera, audio, radio, or door sensor (para. 16 verifying compliance with cleaning procedures with sensor data; para. 17 verifying cleaning of high touch surfaces; para. 40 sensor data that is directly linked to pathogen level are how often a hospital room is cleaned, cleaning verification procedures, etc.; para. 68 cleaning data includes cleaning times, verification testing results, handwashing compliance data from handwashing sensor data; figure 2-3 and para. 92-94 where occupancy sensor and handwashing sensor are used; figure 5 and para. 96 determining if the room was cleaned properly through sensors on objects, line of sight sensors, microphones, etc.; see also para. 71 door sensors, cameras, imaging sensors, line of sight sensors, para. 123 audio tracking system used as occupancy detection device)
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baarman et al. (US 2023/0120290) in view of Glenn et al. (US2009/0267776) in view of Schwarzkopf et al. (US2017/0180829) as applied to claim 15 above, further in view of Werner et al. (US2023/0410623).
As per dependent Claim 18,
Baarman/Glenn/Schwarzkopf teaches the computing device of claim 15.
Baarman/Glenn/Schwarzkopf does not teach, but Werner teaches:
wherein the set of operations comprising determining the remediation action comprise determining that the output of the sensor indicates a blind spot (Para. 43-44 the facility scanner module may be used to scan the facility and send the camera data to the violation detection module and the facility scanner module may report if the first user device missed an area or did not capture clear images of an area and will instruct the first user device to track back to the areas that were missed/not captured clearly to ensure clear images/video are captured of the entire facility; Figure 5 and para. 84-85 if the entire facility has not been scanned, the first user is instructed to move to the next part of the facility to finish scanning)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Werner with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of violation detection.
See para. 25 “The disclosed embodiments may provide the benefit of identifying all violations that may be missed due to human error” and para. 84 “According to one embodiment, if the entire facility 214 has not been scanned (e.g., “No” branch of 518), the violation detection process 500 may return back to 508 to continue capturing the camera feed of the facility 214. For example, the safety program 110 a, 110 b may instruct the first user 206 (e.g., via the first user device 204) to move to the next section, room, and/or part of the facility 214. In one embodiment, the safety program 110 a, 110 b may provide information on the first user device 204 indicating a direction to move or point the first user device 204.”
As per dependent Claim 19,
Baarman/Glenn/Schwarzkopf teaches the computing device of claim 15.
Baarman further teaches:
prompting, via the user interface, the user to perform the remediation action (figure 12 and para. 109 graphical indication of a poor score which indicates it is high risk and needs infection mitigation attention promptly; figure 13 and para. 110 mitigation strategies are applied based on the severity of the scores – emergency disinfection services schedules for scores above 80, rooms at risk have restricted access, and system provides directions such as notice and instructions to increase frequency of hand washing, etc.; para. 113 interrupt the staff member to have them wash hands or perform other mitigation tasks; figure 19 and para. 82-84 recommendations from the system can be delivered and executed by staff carrying out new cleaning tasks and changes to cleaning services and schedules; para. 99 issue mitigation instructions to increase cleaning efforts by staff; see also para. 117 where the application can have a user avoid an area known someone in a location is sick and para. 39 where the application provides recommendations such as pathing/moving away from infected users)
Baarman/Andrasak/Schwarzkopf does not teach, but Werner teaches:
to upload a picture of the zone of the building (Para. 49 violation dashboard module may instruct the first user to correct the violation and rescan the area or the entire facility to prove compliance with the safety standards; Para. 86 the user can initiate the process in figure 5 at any time to demonstrate that the violation has been fixed
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Baarman invention with Werner with the motivation of increasing the accuracy of violation detection.
See para. 25 “The disclosed embodiments may provide the benefit of identifying all violations that may be missed due to human error” and para. 84 “According to one embodiment, if the entire facility 214 has not been scanned (e.g., “No” branch of 518), the violation detection process 500 may return back to 508 to continue capturing the camera feed of the facility 214. For example, the safety program 110 a, 110 b may instruct the first user 206 (e.g., via the first user device 204) to move to the next section, room, and/or part of the facility 214. In one embodiment, the safety program 110 a, 110 b may provide information on the first user device 204 indicating a direction to move or point the first user device 204.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Moss et al. (US2019/0012630) teaches generating a safety rating of a person who performed a safety compliance action by detecting an action by the person, analyzing the action, and determine that the action is an action that satisfies one or more requirements where the safety compliance action may be “the person reporting an incident related to safety condition and/or health condition, the person taking a picture of the incident, the person posting the report of the incident and/or information related to the incident, or any combination thereof”.
Bacco et al. (US Patent No. 8,494,481) teaches alarms triggered by security breaches and selecting a responder to respond to the alarm based on proximity to the site or characteristics of the responder such as experience, qualifications, or workload.
Rice et al. (US2017/0351923) teaches in para. 32 when the system detects a user falling, a camera may modify its viewing area to visualize the user.
Chong (US2018/0033279) teaches in para. 77 based on the score, provide instruction to equipment or change focus of a camera.
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 Lisa Ma whose telephone number is (571)272-2495. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/L.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628