DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This Office Action is in response to reply dated October 13, 2025. Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
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 5 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 5 and 6 recite “wherein software controls”. They are presumed to recite “wherein the software controls”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert (US 2019/0295397 A1) in view of Rodriguez (US 2021/0111911 A1) and Bingham (US 2023/0070772 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eckert discloses a device to provide lighting and noise disturbances in an active shooter environment (see at least Figures 1-8, items 20 and 22 | [0004-0005] note the Event Indicator System (EIS) assists occupants of a building (Figure 1) in response to an active shooter (20), wherein the occupants are guided to safety via output devices (22) | [0040] note the active shooter (20) can be deterred via gun or projectile deterrents, Oleoresin capsicum (OC) pepper balls, tasers, sound, high beam light sources, wall barriers, gates, sound, an alarm, recorded audio information, visual displays, smoke deterrent/smoke curtains, etc. | [0051]), which is comprised of
a plurality of cameras (see at least Figures 1-8, item 10 | [0022] note the sensor device units (10) throughout the building include camera technology),
wherein the plurality of cameras are positioned within a building (see at least Figures 1, 2, 4 and 7, item 10),
lighting (see at least Figures 1-8, items 10 and 46 | [0032] note the output devices (46), such as LED strips, can be separate from the sensor device units (10) and project light from the surface from which it is mounted, for example, the output device (46) is mounted to a first surface, such as a floor or wall, that projects light onto a second surface, such as a ceiling or wall, that is the same as or different than the first surface),
wherein the lighting is placed on the floors of the building (see at least [0032] note a floor mounted output device (46), such as an LED light strip, can project light on the ceiling or wall),
wherein the lighting is placed on the walls of the building (see at least [0032] note a wall mounted output device (46) can project light on the ceiling, floor or opposite/adjacent wall),
wherein different color lighting is provided (see at least [0026] note green and red),
wherein LED lighting is provided (see at least [0032] note LED light strips),
an alarm (see at least [0040] note alarm | [0042] note alarm),
a plurality of locks (see at least [0047] note that at least the interior doors of the building have locks),
wherein the plurality of locks control the interior doors of the building (see at least (see at least [0047] note that at least the interior doors of the building have locks),
a main processing system (see at least [0025-0026] note the EIS main processing system determines safe and unsafe routes which are indicated via green arrows and red X’s | [0051]),
wherein the main processing system controls the lighting (see at least [0025-0026] | [0032]),
wherein the main processing system controls the alarm (see at least [0025] | [0042]),
wherein the main processing system controls the plurality of cameras (see at least [0022] | [0041]), and
wherein the main processing system transmits information to law enforcement personnel (see at least [0031]).
However, Eckert does not specifically disclose wherein area scan cameras are positioned within the building; wherein the plurality of locks control the exterior doors of the building; software; a plurality of ethernet cables; a plurality of network switches; and a video recorder.
It is known for the system of a facility to be arranged in different ways. For example, Rodriguez teaches a system that utilizes software; a plurality of ethernet cables; a plurality of network switches; and a video recorder (see at least [0024] note the PoE lighting system is powered by a network switch using power over ethernet technology | [0025-0026] note software | [0027] note switches | [0063] | [0067] note ethernet cables | [0069] note the various types of lighting used | [0072-0074] note recording features of security cameras and network switches).
With respect to the other limitations, Bingham teaches a system wherein area scan cameras are positioned within the building (see at least Figures 1-2, item 214 | [0122] note the camera can be tilted or rotated to scan the area); and wherein the plurality of locks control the exterior doors of the building (see at least [0081] note shutting and locking one or more interior and exterior doors | [0086]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Rodriguez and Bingham into Eckert. With respect to Rodriguez, this provides the ability to power Eckert’s lighting and record images of Eckert’s active shooter, thus eliminating batteries and helping ensure law enforcement identify the shooter. With respect to Bingham, this provides the ability for Eckert in view of Rodriguez’s contacted law enforcement to move selected cameras for better target acquisition, and to prevent the target from exiting/entering certain areas of the building.
Regarding claim 2, Eckert in view of Rodriguez and Bingham teach wherein green lighting is used (see at least [0026] of Eckert, note green arrow).
Regarding claim 4, Eckert in view of Rodriguez and Bingham teach wherein red lighting is used (see at least [0026] of Eckert, note red X’s).
Regarding claim 6, Eckert in view of Rodriguez and Bingham teach wherein software controls electrical locks (see at least [0063] of Rodriguez).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert (US 2019/0295397 A1) in view of Rodriguez (US 2021/0111911 A1) and Bingham (US 2023/0070772 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bligh (US 6,646,545 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Eckert in view of Rodriguez and Bingham do not specifically teach wherein amber lighting is used.
It is known for lighting to produce a wide variety of different colors. For example, Bligh teaches an alert system wherein amber lighting is used (see at least the abstract | col. 3, lines 53-55 | col. 6, lines 20-27).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Bligh into Eckert in view of Rodriguez and Bingham. This provides the ability to detect faults in Eckert in view of Rodriguez and Bingham’s lighting, thus helping ensure they are addressed when the lighting is needed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eckert (US 2019/0295397 A1) in view of Rodriguez (US 2021/0111911 A1) and Bingham (US 2023/0070772 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Zozula (US 8,376,567 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Eckert in view of Rodriguez and Bingham teach wherein software controls electrical locks (see at least [0063] of Rodriguez).
However, Eckert in view of Rodriguez and Bingham do not specifically teach mechanical locks.
It is known for emergency systems to control access. For example, Zozula teaches an alert system that controls mechanical locks (see at least the abstract | col. 3, lines 53-55 | col. 14, lines 39-67).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features of Zozula into Eckert in view of Rodriguez and Bingham. This provides the ability to control access to existing access points, thus providing flexibility and added safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed October 13, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “This application is an application that teaches a device that will attempt to protect a crowd from an active shooter situation. The undersigned would concede that there are similarities between the prior art that has been cited and the current application.
However, a feature that is not taught by the prior art is the ability of the software to communicate with law enforcement personnel. This ability to communicate would reduce the response time of law enforcement and probably save lives by controlling the situation. Additionally the use of LED lighting would enable the area to be quickly illuminated and brightly illuminated to allow the individuals to respond to the situation.”
In response, paragraph [0031] of Eckert discloses “The EIS main processing system will determine which agencies to notify based on the type and severity level of the event. In the case of an active shooter 20, the system will communicate information to the responding law enforcement officers regarding the building layout (blueprint), the approximate or exact location where the first shot was fired, and the location within the building of subsequent follow up shots including last shots fired in real time. The purpose of real time event location tracking is to give emergency responders a more precise account of the location of the moving threat enabling a faster response time.”
With respect to Applicant’s concerns about LED lighting, paragraph [0032] of Eckert discloses “The output device 46 includes light emitting components capable of producing projected images onto surrounding surfaces such as the floor and walls of a building interior, other surrounding objects or onto particulates in the air. The light could be generated using LEDs, lasers or other light emitting technologies…In other embodiments, the output device 46 could be a simple light fixture such as a LED light strip that projects lights on or from the surface on which it is mounted.”
For at least the reasons addressed above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 BRIAN WILSON whose telephone number is 571-270-5884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, DAVETTA GOINS can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/BRIAN WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689