DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: they use the term “beat map” instead of “heat map” as disclosed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “heavily” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “heavily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification only defines “heavily” with other relative terms. [0044] of the instant PGpub (2025/0203440) provides examples of “e.g., heavy traffic exists in the area, the area is grid locked, the area is flooded, heavy snowfall is occurring, heavy rain is occurring, . . . , etc”. and [0046] equates “heavily” to “excessive”. Thus there are no definitive meets and bounds for ‘heavily’.
The term “excessive” in claim 10 is similarly not defined and is a relative term which also renders the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt et al. (2024/0185717) hereinafter “Wendt” and Kahler (2025/0191098).
As to claim 1, Wendt discloses A server (108), (Fig 1) comprising:
a network interface (to 110) coupled to a “public works” database (112) and a “public safety” database (112);
logic circuitry coupled to the network interface, the logic circuitry configured to:
retrieve [[from the public safety database]], areas frequented by a [[public safety officer]] (user) ([0256]:”…operation 604 and entity data may be received… indicative of the entity’s… path/route, and the like”);
retrieve from the public works database (112), locations of public works projects ([0255]:”…operation 602 and safety-related data may be received and aggregated”)
determine ([0257]: “operation 606 and the safety-related data may be compared to the entity data to determine relevant, related, or applicable safety-related data… matches or is proximate to the location… or near the entity’s route…”) if areas frequented by the public safety officer (path/route) are nearby areas affected (safety-related data) by public works projects; and
electronically transmit, via the network interface, a notification ([0258]: …operation 608 and the relevant safety-related data may be transmitted to the safety device or user device) to the public safety officer when areas frequented by the public safety officer are nearby any areas affected by at least one public works project, wherein the notification indicates locations (evidenced by “further processing” with respect to Fig 19 – which uses locations see [0263]-[0264]) of the public works projects that are nearby areas frequented by the public safety officer. Note that [0259] provides for a safety risk to include “construction” – a public work.
In an analogous art, Kahler discloses A server (20)
coupled to a “public works” database and a “public safety” database [0051]:”… server (20) may be configured for communication with… external databases and other sources…”; and logic circuitry coupled to the network interface, the logic circuitry configured to:
retrieve from the public safety database (110), areas frequented by a public safety officer ([0055]: ”the current location of each registered user, and a record of “favorite” areas of locations of individuals(30).” And ([0063]:”… server (20) will have access to one or more databases…”). Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server of Wendt such that it also retrieved areas frequented from the public safety database as taught by Kahler for the purpose of utilizing information regarding the users favorite frequented locations.
It is noted that the terms “public safety”, “public works”, and “public safety officer” are merely labels / intended uses not carrying patentable weight.
As to claim 2, The combination of Wendt and Kahler discloses the server of claim 1 Wendt discloses wherein the network interface comprises a cross-agency network interface (to network 110), with the public safety database being maintained by a public safety agency, and the public works database being maintained by a public works agency. See [0093].
It is noted that the term “cross-agency” is merely a label / intended use not carrying patentable weight. Also, who or what agency maintains which database is an intended use not within the scope of the claim which is patentably limited by the structure of the server as recited.
As to claim 3, The combination of Wendt and Kahler discloses the server of claim 1, Wendt discloses wherein an area is affected by the public works project when the public works project is within a predetermined distance from the area. See [0257]: “…matches or is proximate to…”.
Claim 15 recites a method corresponding to the server of claim 1 and is treated as above.
Claims 12-14 correspond to claims 1-3 and are treated as applied above. In addition to claim 12, it is considered that the server of Wendt inherently processes such for multiple users and [0257] provides for conditions when matching which thereby implies “only” such that
determine that areas frequented by the second public safety officer are not nearby areas affected by a public works project; and
only electronically transmitting, via the network interface, a notification to the first public safety officer based on the determination that areas frequented by the first public safety officer are nearby areas affected by a public works project, wherein the notification indicates locations of the public works projects that are nearby areas frequented by the first public safety officer, is implied.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt and Kahler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamine et al. (2018/0035322) hereinafter “Yamine”.
As to claim 4, The combination of Wendt and Kahler discloses the server of claim 1 is silent to yet in an analogous art, Yamine discloses wherein the logic circuitry is further configured to: determine a plurality locations of the [[public safety officer]] (user) over a period of time; determine the areas most frequented by the [[public safety officer]] (user) from the plurality locations of the public safety officer over the period of time; and store the areas most frequented by the [[public safety officer]] (user) in the public safety database. See [0102]-[0103]. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server of Wendt to determine a plurality locations of the [[public safety officer]] (user) over a period of time; determine the areas most frequented by the [[public safety officer]] (user) from the plurality locations of the public safety officer over the period of time; and store the areas most frequented by the [[public safety officer]] (user) in the public safety database as suggested by Yamine for the purpose of learning historical locations of user.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt, Kahler, and Yamine as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Montague (11023957).
As to claim 5, The combination of Wendt, Kahler, and Yamine discloses The server of claim 4 is silent to yet in an analogous art Montague discloses wherein the areas most frequented by the public safety officer are stored / (represented as) in the public safety database as a heat map. See col 7 lines 33-37. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server of Wendt wherein the areas most frequented by the public safety officer are stored in the public safety database as a heat map as suggested by Montague for the purpose of representing “hot spots”.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt and Kahler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Montague (11023957).
As to claim 6, The combination of Wendt and Kahler discloses The server of claim 1 is silent to yet in an analogous art Montague discloses wherein the areas most frequented by the public safety officer comprise a heat map. See col 7 lines 33-37. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server of Wendt wherein the areas most frequented by the public safety officer comprise a heat map as suggested by Montague for the purpose of representing “hot spots”.
As to claim 7, The combination of Wendt, Kahler and Montague discloses The server of claim 6, the combination of Wendt and Kahler provides wherein the heat map is stored in the public safety database (see claim 1)
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt and Kahler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Slavin (10997430).
As to claim 8, The combination of Wendt and Kahler discloses The server of claim 1 is silent yet in an analogous art discloses wherein the logic circuitry is additionally configured to: electronically transmit, via the network interface, a request to dispatch additional public safety officers to an area frequented by the public safety officer when the area frequented by the public safety officer is nearby an area affected by at least one public works project. See col 11 lines 7-25. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server of Wendt wherein the logic circuitry is additionally configured to: electronically transmit, via the network interface, a request to dispatch additional public safety officers to an area frequented by the public safety officer when the area frequented by the public safety officer is nearby an area affected by at least one public works project as taught by Slavin for the purpose of getting appropriate help.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wendt and Kahler as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Odom (4241326).
As to claim 9, The combination of Wendt and Kahler discloses The server of claim 1, Wendt disclose wherein: the network interface receives sensor information from sensors (122) located near an area affected by at least one public works project (see [0113]-[0115]); and wherein the logic circuitry is additionally configured to: determine, via the sensor information [0113]: “…The sensor data collected by the one or more sensors 122 may be included in the safety-related data…”) , if the area affected by at least one public works project is [[heavily]] affected, and if so, electronically transmit, via the network interface, a request to dispatch additional public safety officers to the area frequented by the public safety officer. In an analogous art, Odom discloses wherein it was known to transmit a request to dispatch additional public safety officers to the area frequented by the public safety officer (if area is determined to be heavily affected (heavy cross traffic, etc.). See col 18 lines 39-56. Before the effective filing date of the instant invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the server of Wendt wherein it circuitry is configured to determine if the area affected by at least one public works project is “heavily” affected, and if so, electronically transmit, via the network interface, a request to dispatch additional public safety officers to the area frequented by the public safety officer as suggested by Odom for the purpose of simplifying the process of getting help.
As to claim 10, The combination of Wendt, Kahler, and Odom discloses The server of claim 9, Odom discloses wherein at least one public works project is heavily affected when the at least one public works project has a nearby road that has excessive traffic (heavy cross-traffic) as applied above to claim 9, (See col 18 lines 39-56).
As to claim 11, The combination of Wendt, Kahler, and Odom discloses The server of claim 9, Wendt discloses wherein the sensors comprise sensors taken from the group consisting of seismic sensors, stress sensors, visual or infrared cameras, traffic sensors, rainfall sensors, wind sensors, and snow sensors. See [0086], [0113], [0127], [0148], [0238], etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ogawa et al. (2022/0114554) provide for the notification of a worker in an area based on history. See [0263]-[0274].
Napoli (2015/0199641) provides for notification transmission. See Figs 3a-b, {0024], etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LESTER KINCAID whose telephone number is (571)272-7922. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7-5.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
LESTER G. KINCAID
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2649
/LESTER G KINCAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649