DETAILED ACTION
America Invents Act
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for domestic priority under 35 USC §119(e) and 35 USC §120 is acknowledged:
This application, filed 19-April-2024, is a continuation of application 17/712,181, filed 3-April-2022; subsequently issued as US 11,995,976 B2 (Parent).
Application 17/712,181 is a continuation of application 16/876,381, filed 18-May-2020; subsequently abandoned.
Application 16/876,381 is a continuation of application 15/787,917, filed 19-October-2017; subsequently issued as US 10,657,797 B2 (G2Parent).
Application 15/787,917 is a continuation of application 14/587,358, filed 31-December-2014; subsequently issued as US 9,799,205 B2 (G3Parent).
Application 14/587,358 is a continuation of application 14/330,508, filed 14-July-2014; subsequently abandoned.
Application 14/330,508 claims priority from provisional application 61/846,371, filed 15-July-2013.
Preliminary Amendment
The present Office Action is based upon the original patent application filed on 19-April-2024 as modified by the preliminary amendment PA#1 filed on 10-February-2025.
Claims 1, 14 and 20 have been amended
Claims 3, 4, 15 and 16 have been cancelled.
Claims 21-23 have been added
Claims 1, 2, 5-14 and 17-23 are now pending in the present application.
Double Patenting
Claims 1, 2, 5-14 and 17-23 are rejected for non-statutory double patenting:
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 2, 5-14 and 17-23 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Wedig (United States Patent # US 11,995,976 B2), hereinafter Parent, in view of Russell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0143801 A1), hereinafter Russell.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Current Application
US 11,995,976 B2 (Parent)
Claim 1: An evacuation system comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes installed within a structure, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes is configured to detect an evacuation condition;
a system server in communication with the plurality of sensory nodes;
a user device configured to communicate with the system server, the user device comprising a sensor which can determine a location of the user device;
wherein the system server is configured to transmit the existence of the evacuation condition to the user device;
the user device being configured to alert a user of the evacuation condition; and
determine if the user has responded to the alert; and
transmit a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the alert.
Claim 1: . An evacuation system comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes installed within a structure, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes is configured to detect an evacuation condition;
a system server in communication with the plurality of sensory nodes;
a user device configured to communicate with the system server, the user device comprising a sensor which can determine a location of the user device, the user device receiving data that represents physical limitations of a user;
wherein the system server is configured to transmit the existence of the evacuation condition to the user device;
the user device being configured to alert a user of the evacuation condition; and
wherein the user device communicates information related to the evacuation condition and an evacuation route to the user, the evacuation route determined at least in part using the physical limitations of the user; and
wherein the user device prevents communication of the alert when the user device is located in an area not affected by detected evacuation condition.
Claim 2: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the system server is configured to determine a location of the evacuation condition based upon a location or identity of at least one of the plurality of sensory nodes that detect the evacuation condition and transmit the determined location to the user device.
Claim 2: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the system server is configured to determine a location of the evacuation condition based upon a location or identity of at least one of the plurality of sensory nodes that detect the evacuation condition and transmit the determined location to the user device.
Claim 3: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes comprises: a sensor configured to detect the evacuation condition; a memory configured to store identity information of each of the plurality of sensory nodes and routing information configured to facilitate communication with other ones of the plurality of sensory nodes and with the system server; and a processor configured to: transmit information of the evacuation condition to the system server based upon information received from the sensor and the memory.
Claim 4: The evacuation system of claim 3, wherein the identity information comprises at least one of global positioning coordinates or installation position with the structure.
Claim 5: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is configured to utilize a number of occupants detected in combination with the severity of the evacuation condition and the layout of the structure to determine the evacuation route.
Claim 5: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is configured to utilize a number of occupants detected in combination with the severity of the evacuation condition and the layout of the structure to determine the evacuation route.
Claim 6: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the system server collects data from one or more of the sensory nodes comprising detected conditions and timestamps associated the detection conditions.
Claim 6: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the system server collects data from one or more of the sensory nodes comprising detected conditions and timestamps associated the detection conditions.
Claim 7: The evacuation system of claim 6, wherein the system server stores the collected data when not in communications range of the user device and communicates the stored data and timestamps to the user device when the user devices comes into communications range of the system server.
Claim 7: The evacuation system of claim 6, wherein the system server stores the collected data when not in communications range of the user device and communicates the stored data and timestamps to the user device when the user devices comes into communications range of the system server.
Claim 8: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the sensory nodes utilize a first threshold to detect an evacuation condition and a second threshold to provide an early warning of an impending evacuation condition and the system server further configured to transmit the early warning to a user device.
Claim 8: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the sensory nodes utilize a first threshold to detect an evacuation condition and a second threshold to provide an early warning of an impending evacuation condition and the system server further configured to transmit the early warning to a user device.
Claim 9: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is in communication with an emergency responder and communicates a location of the user device and information pertaining to the structure to an emergency responder.
Claim 9: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is in direct communication with an emergency responder and communicates a location of the user device and information pertaining to the structure to an emergency responder.
Claim 10: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises a representation of a floor plan of the structure.
Claim 10: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises a representation of a floor plan of the structure.
Claim 11: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device receives building conditions after the evacuation route is communicated to the user, the received building conditions being used to provide a modification to the evacuation route.
Claim 11: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device receives building conditions after the evacuation route is communicated to the user, the received building conditions being used to provide a modification to the evacuation route.
Claim 12: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device receives conditions of a user and the evacuation route is determined using those conditions.
Claim 13: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device prevents communication of the alert when the user device is located in an area not effected by detected evacuation condition.
Claim 14: A method of evacuating a structure comprising:
receiving, by a system server, sensory data from a plurality of sensory nodes;
determining, by the system server, an evacuation condition using sensory data received from at least one of the plurality of sensory nodes;
communicating, by the system server, the existence of the evacuation condition to a user device;
communicating, by the user device, information about the evacuation condition to the user;
determining if the user has responded to the information about the evacuation condition;
transmitting a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the information about the evacuation condition.
Claim 12: A method of evacuating a structure comprising:
receiving, by a system server, sensory data from a plurality of sensory nodes;
determining, by the system server, an evacuation condition using sensory data received from at least one of the plurality of sensory nodes;
communicating, by the system server, the existence of the evacuation condition to a user device;
receiving, by the user device, data representing physical limitations of a user of the user device;
displaying on a user interface of the user device, information about the evacuation condition;
determining, by the user device, a location of user device;
displaying on the user interface of the user device, an alert of the existence of the evacuation condition;
displaying on the user interface of the user device, an evacuation route where the evacuation route is determined at least in part using the physical limitations of the user;
storing the received sensory data when the system server is not in communications range of the user device; and
communicating the stored sensory data and data timestamps to the user device when the user devices comes into communications range of the system server.
Claim 17: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining an evacuation route utilizing a number of occupants detected in combination with the severity of the evacuation condition and the layout of the structure.
Claim 13: The method of claim 12, further comprising:
receiving by a system server, sensory node information comprising at least one of global positioning coordinates or installation position with the structure.
Claim 18: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
receiving a condition of the user by the user device; and
determining the evacuation route at least partially using the received condition.
Claim 14: The method of claim 13, wherein:
the system server:
determining, by the system server, a location of the evacuation condition based upon a location or identity of at least one of the plurality of sensory nodes that detect the evacuation condition; and transmitting to the user device by the system server, the determined location.
Claim 19: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
storing the received sensory data when the system server is not in communications range of the user device; and
communicating the stored sensory data and data timestamps to the user device when the user devices comes into communications range of the system server.
Claim 15: The method of claim 12, further comprising: determining an evacuation route utilizing a number of occupants detected in combination with the severity of the evacuation condition and the layout of the structure.
Claim 20: An evacuation system comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes installed within a structure, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes is configured to detect an evacuation condition;
a system server in communication with the plurality of sensory nodes;
a user device configured to communicate with the system server, the user device comprising a sensor which can determine a location of the user device;
wherein the system server is configured to transmit the existence of the evacuation condition to the user device;
the user device is in communication with an emergency responder and configured to communicate a location of the user device and information pertaining to the structure to an emergency responder;
the user device being configured to alert a user of the evacuation condition;
determine if the user has responded to the alert;
transmit a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the alert;
the system server being configured to communicate to the emergency responder that the user has not responded to the alert.
Claim 16: An evacuation system comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes installed within a structure, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes is configured to detect an evacuation condition;
a system server in communication with the plurality of sensory nodes;
a user device configured to communicate with the system server, the user device comprising a sensor which can determine a location of the user device;
wherein the system server is configured to transmit the existence of the evacuation condition to the user device;
the user device is in direct communication with an emergency responder and configured to communicate a location of the user device and information pertaining to the structure to an emergency responder;
the user device being configured to alert a user of the evacuation condition;
wherein the user device receives data representing physical limitations of a user and determines an evacuation route based upon the physical limitations of the user and the evacuation condition;
wherein the user device communicates information related to the evacuation condition and the evacuation route to the user; and
wherein the user device receives building conditions after the evacuation route is communicated to the user, the user device being configured to provide the user with a second evacuation route based on the received building conditions.
Claim 21: The evacuation system of claim 2, wherein the system server is configured to monitor the location of the user device and alerting the user a second time if the user device is not moving away from the location of the evacuation condition.
Claim 22: The method of claim 18, further comprising:
monitoring the location of the user device and alerting the user a second time if the user device is not moving away from the location of the evacuation condition.
Claim 23: The evacuation system of claim 20, wherein the system server is configured to monitor the location of the user device and alert the emergency responder a second time if the user device is not moving away from the location of the evacuation condition.
Consider independent claim 1: Parent, claim 1, recites or suggests all of the limitations of independent claim 1 except transmission of a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the alert.
Russell discloses a system and method for communicating emergency information [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0012], and specifically that if a subscriber fails to acknowledge the emergency media channel, the emergency alert server and/or the emergency response service server may cause a notice to be sent to one or more emergency response services personnel to request a follow-up action with the subscriber [Para. 0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to notify an emergency responder by communication to a server if a notification is not acknowledged as taught by Russell and as applied to an evacuation system and method as claimed by Parent, where such non-response may indicate that the subscriber is incapacitated.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 2.
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 5.
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 6.
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 6: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 7.
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 8.
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 9.
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 10.
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 11.
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 1.
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 1.
Consider independent claim 14: Parent, claims 1 and 12, recite or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 14 except transmission of a notification to the system server, and emergency providers, if the user has not responded to the alert. Russell, however, teaches these limitations, ,and the claim rendered obvious based on the analysis and citations provided for claim 1 previously.
Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 14: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 15, and as applied to claim 12.
Consider claim 18 and as applied to claim 14: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 12 wherein physical limitations may broadly be considered a user condition.
Consider claim 19 and as applied to claim 14: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Parent claim 12.
Consider independent claim 20: Parent, claims 1, 12 and 16, recite or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 20 except transmission of a notification to the system server, and emergency providers, if the user has not responded to the alert. Russell, however, teaches these limitations, ,and the claim rendered obvious based on the analysis and citations provided for claims 1 and 14 previously.
Consider claim 21 and as applied to claim 2: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Russell where a failure to respond may result in a follow-up notification use the same and/or alternate communication channels [Para. 0039-0042].
Consider claim 22 and as applied to claim 18: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Russell where a failure to respond may result in a follow-up notification use the same and/or alternate communication channels [Para. 0039-0042].
Consider claim 23 and as applied to claim 20: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Russell where a failure to respond may result in a follow-up notification use the same and/or alternate communication channels [Para. 0039-0042].
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11-14, 18 and 20-23 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-16 of Wedig (United States Patent # US 10,657,797 B2), hereinafter G2Parent, in view of Russell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0143801 A1), hereinafter Russell.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Current Application
US 10,657,797 B2 (G2Parent)
Claim 1: An evacuation system comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes installed within a structure, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes is configured to detect an evacuation condition;
a system server in communication with the plurality of sensory nodes;
a user device configured to communicate with the system server, the user device comprising a sensor which can determine a location of the user device;
wherein the system server is configured to transmit the existence of the evacuation condition to the user device;
the user device being configured to alert a user of the evacuation condition; and
determine if the user has responded to the alert; and
transmit a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the alert.
Claim 1: . An evacuation system comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes installed within a first structure and a second structure, wherein a first subset of the plurality of sensory nodes in the first structure are configured to detect a first evacuation condition and a second subset of the plurality of sensory nodes in the second structure are configured to detect a second evacuation condition; and
a user device configured to receive an indication of the first evacuation condition and the second evacuation condition from the plurality of sensory nodes, and in response:
determine that a location of the user device is within a predetermined distance from the first structure associated with the first evacuation condition and not within the predetermined distance from the second structure associated with the second evacuation condition;
alert a user of the user device of the first evacuation condition and not of the second evacuation condition responsive to determining that the location of the user device is within the predetermined distance from the first structure and not within the predetermined distance from the second structure;
determine an evacuation route for exiting the first structure;
monitor the evacuation route and location of the user device to determine that an update condition is satisfied in response to detecting that the user device is moving toward a location of the first structure that is unsafe based on ambient sound sensed by the user device;
update the evacuation route based upon the update condition being satisfied wherein the updated evacuation route directs the user of the user device away from the unsafe location.
Claim 2: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the system server is configured to determine a location of the evacuation condition based upon a location or identity of at least one of the plurality of sensory nodes that detect the evacuation condition and transmit the determined location to the user device.
Claim 2: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes is configured to communicate with one another and with a system server of the evacuation system.
Claim 3: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes comprises: a sensor configured to detect the first evacuation condition or the second evacuation condition; a memory configured to store identity information of the plurality of sensory nodes and routing information configured to facilitate communication with other ones of the plurality of sensory nodes; and a processor configured to transmit information of the first evacuation condition or the second evacuation condition to the user device based upon information received from the sensor and the memory.
Claim 4: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is further configured to adjust a setting of the user device prior to notifying a user of the user device of the first evacuation condition.
Claim 5: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is configured to utilize a number of occupants detected in combination with the severity of the evacuation condition and the layout of the structure to determine the evacuation route.
Claim 5: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is further configured to transmit the location of the user device to an emergency personnel device.
Claim 6: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the system server collects data from one or more of the sensory nodes comprising detected conditions and timestamps associated the detection conditions.
Claim 6: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is configured to determine that the user is moving along the evacuation route.
Claim 7: The evacuation system of claim 6, wherein the system server stores the collected data when not in communications range of the user device and communicates the stored data and timestamps to the user device when the user devices comes into communications range of the system server.
Claim 7: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is further configured to: determine that the user has not responded to a notification; and communicate with an emergency responder indicating that the user is incapacitated.
Claim 8: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the sensory nodes utilize a first threshold to detect an evacuation condition and a second threshold to provide an early warning of an impending evacuation condition and the system server further configured to transmit the early warning to a user device.
Claim 9: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is in communication with an emergency responder and communicates a location of the user device and information pertaining to the structure to an emergency responder.
Claim 10: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises a representation of a floor plan of the structure.
Claim 11: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device receives building conditions after the evacuation route is communicated to the user, the received building conditions being used to provide a modification to the evacuation route.
Claim 12: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device receives conditions of a user and the evacuation route is determined using those conditions.
Claim 13: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device prevents communication of the alert when the user device is located in an area not effected by detected evacuation condition.
Claim 14: A method of evacuating a structure comprising:
receiving, by a system server, sensory data from a plurality of sensory nodes;
determining, by the system server, an evacuation condition using sensory data received from at least one of the plurality of sensory nodes;
communicating, by the system server, the existence of the evacuation condition to a user device;
communicating, by the user device, information about the evacuation condition to the user;
determining if the user has responded to the information about the evacuation condition;
transmitting a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the information about the evacuation condition.
Claim 8: A method comprising:
receiving, by a user device associated with an evacuation system, an indication of a first evacuation condition in a first structure and of a second evacuation condition in a second structure;
determining that a location of the user device is within a predetermined distance from the first structure associated with the first evacuation condition and not within the predetermined distance from the second structure associated with the second evacuation condition;
alerting a user of the user device of the first evacuation condition and not of the second evacuation condition responsive to determining that the location of the user device is within the predetermined distance from the first structure and not within the predetermined distance from the second structure;
determining, by the user device an evacuation route for exiting the first structure; monitoring, by the user device, the evacuation route and location of the user device for determining that an update condition is satisfied in response to detecting that the user device is moving toward a location of the first structure that is unsafe based on ambient sound sensed by the user device;
updating, by the user device, the evacuation route based upon the update condition being satisfied wherein the updated evacuation route directs the user of the user device away from the unsafe location.
Claim 17: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining an evacuation route utilizing a number of occupants detected in combination with the severity of the evacuation condition and the layout of the structure.
Claim 9: The method of claim 8, further comprising prompting, by the user device, the user for an action comprising at least one of acknowledging an alert on the user device, indicating that the alert is a false alarm, or agreeing to contact an emergency personnel, in response to the alerting.
Claim 18: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
receiving a condition of the user by the user device; and
determining the evacuation route at least partially using the received condition.
Claim 10: The method of claim 9, further comprising adjusting, by the user device, a setting of the user device prior to notifying the user of the first evacuation condition.
Claim 19: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
storing the received sensory data when the system server is not in communications range of the user device; and
communicating the stored sensory data and data timestamps to the user device when the user devices comes into communications range of the system server.
Claim 11: The method of claim 8, further comprising prompting, by the user device, the user to contact emergency personnel.
Claim 12: The method of claim 8, further comprising: determining, by the user device, a pathway from a plurality of pathways that is not navigable; and excluding, by the user device, the pathway in determining the evacuation route.
Claim 13: The method of claim 8, further comprising transmitting, by the user device, the location of the user device to another device.
Claim 14: The method of claim 13, wherein the another device is an emergency personnel device, a system server, or a sensory node associated with the evacuation system.
Claim 15: The method of claim 8, further comprising receiving, by the user device, the indication of the first evacuation condition from a sensory node associated with the evacuation system, wherein the sensory node is installed within the first structure.
Claim 16: The method of claim 8, further comprising receiving, by the user device, the indication of the first evacuation condition from a system server associated with the evacuation system.
Consider claim 20: An evacuation system comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes installed within a structure, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes is configured to detect an evacuation condition;
a system server in communication with the plurality of sensory nodes;
a user device configured to communicate with the system server, the user device comprising a sensor which can determine a location of the user device;
wherein the system server is configured to transmit the existence of the evacuation condition to the user device;
the user device is in communication with an emergency responder and configured to communicate a location of the user device and information pertaining to the structure to an emergency responder;
the user device being configured to alert a user of the evacuation condition;
determine if the user has responded to the alert;
transmit a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the alert;
the system server being configured to communicate to the emergency responder that the user has not responded to the alert.
Claim 21: The evacuation system of claim 2, wherein the system server is configured to monitor the location of the user device and alerting the user a second time if the user device is not moving away from the location of the evacuation condition.
Claim 22: The method of claim 18, further comprising:
monitoring the location of the user device and alerting the user a second time if the user device is not moving away from the location of the evacuation condition.
Claim 23: The evacuation system of claim 20, wherein the system server is configured to monitor the location of the user device and alert the emergency responder a second time if the user device is not moving away from the location of the evacuation condition.
Consider independent claim 1: G2Parent, claims 1, 2 and 7 (also claims 8 and 14), recite or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 1 except: (a) that a user device receives notification of an evacuation condition from a server, or (b) transmission of a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to an alert.
Russell discloses a system and method for communicating emergency information [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0012], and specifically that: (a) user devices (MCD)receive alert notifications from an emergency alert server (EA) (340, 344) [Fig. 3; Para. 0032, 0037-0038], and (b) if a subscriber fails to acknowledge the emergency media channel, the emergency alert server and/or the emergency response service server may cause a notice to be sent to one or more emergency response services personnel to request a follow-up action with the subscriber [Para. 0040].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to (a) send evacuation notifications from a server to user devices, and (b) notify an emergency responder by communication to a server if a notification is not acknowledged as taught by Russell and as applied to an evacuation system and method as claimed by G2Parent, to notify users of an evacuation condition and where non-response to a notification may indicate that the subscriber is incapacitated.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by G2Parent claims 1 and 2.
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by G2Parent claim 5.
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by G2Parent claim 1.
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by G2Parent claim 1, and where is user condition may be broadly considered a proximity of the user with respect to a structure for which an evacuation determination is made.
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 1: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by G2Parent claim 1.
Consider independent claim 14: G2Parent, claims 1, 7, 8 and 16, recite or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 14 except transmission of a notification to the system server, and emergency providers, if the user has not responded to the alert. Russell, however, teaches these limitations, ,and the claim rendered obvious based on the analysis and citations provided for claim 1 previously.
Consider claim 18 and as applied to claim 14: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by G2Parent claims 1 and 14, and where is user condition may be broadly considered a proximity of the user with respect to a structure for which an evacuation determination is made.
Consider independent claim 20: G2Parent, claims 1, 7, 8 and 16, recite or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 20 except transmission of a notification to the system server, and emergency providers, if the user has not responded to the alert. Russell, however, teaches these limitations, ,and the claim rendered obvious based on the analysis and citations provided for claims 1 and 14 previously.
Consider claim 21 and as applied to claim 2: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Russell where a failure to respond may result in a follow-up notification use the same and/or alternate communication channels [Para. 0039-0042].
Consider claim 22 and as applied to claim 8: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Russell where a failure to respond may result in a follow-up notification use the same and/or alternate communication channels [Para. 0039-0042].
Consider claim 23 and as applied to claim 20: The additional limitations of this claim are taught by Russell where a failure to respond may result in a follow-up notification use the same and/or alternate communication channels [Para. 0039-0042].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC §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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC §102 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC §102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC §102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 17, 20, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Wedig et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0241877 A1), hereinafter Wedig, in view of Ebdon et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0136463 A1), hereinafter Ebdon, and Russell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0143801 A1), hereinafter Russell.
Consider claim 1: An evacuation system, Wedig discloses an evacuation system [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0021], comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes installed within a structure, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes is configured to detect an evacuation condition; the system comprising a plurality of sensory nodes (105, 110, 115, 120), the sensors of which are configured to detect an evacuation condition [Fig. 1; Para. 0022-0023];
a system server in communication with the plurality of sensory nodes; the system comprising one or more decision nodes (125, 130), each comprising a processor (330), which are configured to determine one or more evacuation routes, and are in communication with sensory nodes (typically through short-range communication networks (135) [Fig. 1, 3; Para. 0022, 0025-0026], and embodiments in which system functions are implemented with a remote server (700) in communication with the sensory nodes, and that the remote server may replace the decision nodes [Fig. 7; Para. 0069, 0100];
a user device configured to communicate with the system server, the user device comprising a sensor which can determine a location of the user device; embodiments which include one or more user devices (710), which may be a smartphone or cellphone, in communication with sensory nodes (705) and the system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0100, 0103];
wherein the system server is configured to transmit the existence of the evacuation condition to the user device; wherein, in various embodiments, a user device (710) may receive alerts from one or more sensory nodes (705), or from a system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0100];
the user device being configured to alert a user of the evacuation condition; wherein the server and sensor nodes may communicate with the user device, for system configuration, and to provide alerts to the user device, conveyed to the user according to preset preferences [Fig. 7; Para. 0098, 0100, 0103-104]; and
determine if the user has responded to the alert; and
transmit a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the alert; wherein, in various embodiments, a user device may acknowledge alerts from one or more sensory nodes, or alternately, from a system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0098, 0100];
Wedig discloses that sensor and decision nodes may include location (such as GPS) sensors, or that location may be loaded into these devices from a cellphone [Para. 0030], suggesting that a user device comprises one or more sensors for determining location, but does not explicitly disclose this.
Wedig discloses that a user device may acknowledge alerts from the server, [Para. 0098, 0100], but not explicitly communication that the user has not responded to a notification.
These are known in the prior art, however, and for example:
Ebdon discloses an analogous system and method for controlling an emergency event in a region of interest [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001; 0005], and particularly: (a) a server (20) in communication with mobile communication devices (12) (user devices) such as cellular phones; the mobile device equipped with a location provider (16) (sensor) [Fig. 1-2; Para. 0018, 0024, 0028]; and (b) that the mobile device received evacuation instructions from the server (step 103) [Fig. 2; Para. 0019-0020].
Russell discloses a system and method for communicating emergency information [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0012], and specifically that if a subscriber fails to acknowledge the emergency media channel, the emergency alert server and/or the emergency response service server may cause a notice to be sent to one or more emergency response services personnel to request a follow-up action with the subscriber [Fig. 3; Para. 0040]. Russell additionally discloses that alternate media channels may be inhibited until an acknowledgement has been received [Para. 0036-0037, 0041-0042].
Russell discloses that an indicator of acknowledgement is transmitted to the EA server, rather than a specific notice that the alert has not been acknowledged. An artisan, however, would have understood that these are obvious alternatives for a binary condition (absence of an indication that an event has occurred may be construed as an indication that the event has not occurred).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention that a user mobile device in communication with a server be equipped with sensors for determining the mobile device location, and that the server provide alerts to the mobile device regarding an evacuation condition and/or route as taught by Ebdon, and to notify an emergency responder by communication to a server if a notification is not acknowledged as taught by Russell, as applied to an evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig, in order that specific evacuation event details may be provided to the mobile device according to its current location, and where a non-response may indicate that the subscriber is incapacitated or unaware of the evacuation requirement, and in need of special attention.
Consider claim 2 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the system server is configured to determine a location of the evacuation condition based upon a location or identity of at least one of the plurality of sensory nodes that detect the evacuation condition and transmit the determined location to the user device. Wedig discloses determining and use of sensor node locations in the determining and communication of an evacuation condition (step 410) [Fig. 1, 4, 6; Para. 0027, 0048, 0069, 0071, 0092, 0094].
Consider claim 5 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is configured to utilize a number of occupants detected in combination with the severity of the evacuation condition and the layout of the structure to determine the evacuation route.
Wedig discloses a process by which an evacuation route may be determined based on occupancy information (400), evacuation condition, including severity (405), location of the condition (410) and structure layout (415), and that the determination may be by one or more sensory nodes, and/or one or more decision nodes [Fig. 4; Para. 0046-0049].
Wedig also discloses that a server may perform the same functions as a decision node, and that a user device may be in communication with the server and/or sensory nodes [Fig. 7; Para. 0069, 0100], and where the user device is a computing device [Para. 0101-0104].
Wedig does not explicitly disclose that the disclosed process may be performed by a user device, but this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention, where the user device comprises a processor and may receive the information used by the disclosed process, and according to well-known principles of distributing, wherein processing functions may be alternatively performed by one or more interconnecting computing devices, in various configuration, with the same effect.
Consider claim 6 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the system server collects data from one or more of the sensory nodes comprising detected conditions and timestamps associated the detection conditions. Wedig discloses the use of timestamps in association with determined conditions, in some embodiments, to indicate the time of measurements [Para. 0086, 0091, 0094].
Consider claim 8 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the sensory nodes utilize a first threshold to detect an evacuation condition and a second threshold to provide an early warning of an impending evacuation condition and the system server further configured to transmit the early warning to a user device. Wedig discloses that a watch threshold may be set for providing an early warning to a user, in addition to an evacuation condition threshold [Para. 0097-0098].
Consider claim 9 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device is in communication with an emergency responder and communicates a location of the user device and information pertaining to the structure to an emergency responder.
Wedig discloses that user devices (710) and emergency responder devices (725) may both communicate with the system server and receive information pertaining to an evacuation condition [Fig. 7; Para 0100-0103], but does not disclose specifically that a user device communicates location and structure information to an emergency responder.
Ebdon, however, discloses examples where user device location and ancillary information about condition and progress along an evacuation route are relayed (communicated) through a server to first responders [Fig. 4; Para. 0040].
Consider claim 10 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device comprises a representation of a floor plan of the structure.
Wedig discloses that a user device may be used to provide pictures of the structure, construction information and lot information [Para. 0103] and also used to indicate a name for each room where a sensory node is location (thus broadly information related to a floor plan of the structure) [Para. 0104].
Ebdon specifically discloses an egress agent located on the user device and which may include building and/or campus plans [Para. 0026, 0030].
Consider claim 11 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device receives building conditions after the evacuation route is communicated to the user, the received building conditions being used to provide a modification to the evacuation route. Ebdon discloses embodiments in which a user device egress agent (13) determines an evacuation route based on a received condition notification, and that new hazard information (building condition) may be provided on a dynamic basis, and the egress agent reselecting an evacuation path in response [Fig. 5; Para. 0032].
Consider claim 14: A method of evacuating a structure, Wedig discloses an evacuation system and method of operation [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0003, 0021], comprising:
receiving, by a system server, sensory data from a plurality of sensory nodes; a plurality of sensory nodes (105, 110, 115, 120), the sensors of which are configured to detect an evacuation condition [Fig. 1, 4; Para. 0022-0023, 0027, 0047];
determining, by the system server, an evacuation condition using sensory data received from at least one of the plurality of sensory nodes; one or more decision nodes (125, 130), in communication with sensory nodes [Fig. 1, 3; Para. 0022, 0025-0026], and embodiments in which system functions are implemented with a remote server (700) in communication with the sensory nodes, and that the remote server may replace the decision nodes [Fig. 7; Para. 0069, 0100]; and steps (405, 410) in which an evacuation condition is identified and located [Fig. 4; Para. 0047-0048];
communicating, by the system server, the existence of the evacuation condition to a user device; that the system server may communicate alerts to user devices [Fig. 7; Para. 0100];
communicating, by the user device, information about the evacuation condition to the user; wherein the server and sensor nodes may communicate with the user device, for system configuration, and to provide alerts to the user device, conveyed to the user according to preset preferences [Fig. 7; Para. 0100, 0103-104];
determining if the user has responded to the information about the evacuation condition;
transmitting a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the information about the evacuation condition; wherein, in various embodiments, a user device may acknowledge alerts from one or more sensory nodes, or alternately, from a system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0098, 0100];
determine if the user has responded to the alert; and
transmit a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the alert; wherein, in various embodiments, a user device may acknowledge alerts from one or more sensory nodes, or alternately, from a system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0098, 0100];
Wedig discloses that sensor and decision nodes may include location (such as GPS) sensors, or that location may be loaded into these devices from a cellphone [Para. 0030], suggesting that a user device comprises one or more sensors for determining location, but does not explicitly disclose this.
Wedig discloses that a user device may acknowledge alerts from the server, [Para. 0098, 0100], but not explicitly communication that the user has not responded to a notification.
These are known in the prior art, however, and for example:
Ebdon discloses an analogous system and method for controlling an emergency event in a region of interest [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001; 0005], and particularly: (a) a server (20) in communication with mobile communication devices (12) (user devices) such as cellular phones; the mobile device equipped with a location provider (16) (sensor) [Fig. 1-2; Para. 0018, 0024, 0028]; and (b) that the mobile device received evacuation instructions from the server (step 103) [Fig. 2; Para. 0019-0020].
Russell discloses a system and method for communicating emergency information [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0012], and specifically that if a subscriber fails to acknowledge the emergency media channel, the emergency alert server and/or the emergency response service server may cause a notice to be sent to one or more emergency response services personnel to request a follow-up action with the subscriber [Fig. 3; Para. 0040]. Russell additionally discloses that alternate media channels may be inhibited until an acknowledgement has been received [Para. 0036-0037, 0041-0042].
Russell discloses that an indicator of acknowledgement is transmitted to the EA server, rather than a specific notice that the alert has not been acknowledged. An artisan, however, would have understood that these are obvious alternatives for a binary condition (absence of an indication that an event has occurred may be construed as an indication that the event has not occurred).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention that a user mobile device in communication with a server be equipped with sensors for determining the mobile device location, and that the server provide alerts to the mobile device regarding an evacuation condition and/or route as taught by Ebdon, and to notify an emergency responder by communication to a server if a notification is not acknowledged as taught by Russell, as applied to an evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig, in order that specific evacuation event details may be provided to the mobile device according to its current location, and where a non-response may indicate that the subscriber is incapacitated or unaware of the evacuation requirement, and in need of special attention.
Consider claim 17 and as applied to claim 14: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining an evacuation route utilizing a number of occupants detected in combination with the severity of the evacuation condition and the layout of the structure. Wedig discloses a process by which an evacuation route may be determined based on occupancy information (400), evacuation condition, including severity (405), location of the condition (410) and structure layout (415), and that the determination may be by one or more sensory nodes, and/or one or more decision nodes [Fig. 4; Para. 0046-0049].
Consider claim 20: An evacuation system, Wedig discloses an evacuation system [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0021], comprising:
a plurality of sensory nodes installed within a structure, wherein each of the plurality of sensory nodes is configured to detect an evacuation condition; the system comprising a plurality of sensory nodes (105, 110, 115, 120), the sensors of which are configured to detect an evacuation condition [Fig. 1; Para. 0022-0023];
a system server in communication with the plurality of sensory nodes; the system comprising one or more decision nodes (125, 130), each comprising a processor (330), which are configured to determine one or more evacuation routes, and are in communication with sensory nodes (typically through short-range communication networks (135) [Fig. 1, 3; Para. 0022, 0025-0026], and embodiments in which system functions are implemented with a remote server (700) in communication with the sensory nodes, and that the remote server may replace the decision nodes [Fig. 7; Para. 0069, 0100];
a user device configured to communicate with the system server, the user device comprising a sensor which can determine a location of the user device; embodiments which include one or more user devices (710), which may be a smartphone or cellphone, in communication with sensory nodes (705) and the system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0100, 0103];
wherein the system server is configured to transmit the existence of the evacuation condition to the user device; wherein, in various embodiments, a user device (710) may receive alerts from one or more sensory nodes (705), or from a system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0100];
the user device is in communication with an emergency responder and configured to communicate a location of the user device and information pertaining to the structure to an emergency responder; wherein user devices (710) and emergency responder devices (725) may both communicate with the system server and receive information pertaining to an evacuation condition [Fig. 7; Para 0100-0103];
the user device being configured to alert a user of the evacuation condition; wherein the server and sensor nodes may communicate with the user device, for system configuration, and to provide alerts to the user device, conveyed to the user according to preset preferences [Fig. 7; Para. 0100, 0103-104];
determine if the user has responded to the alert;
transmit a notification to the system server if the user has not responded to the alert; wherein, in various embodiments, a user device may acknowledge alerts from one or more sensory nodes, or alternately, from a system server (700) [Fig. 7; Para. 0098, 0100];
the system server being configured to communicate to the emergency responder that the user has not responded to the alert.
Wedig discloses that sensor and decision nodes may include location (such as GPS) sensors, or that location may be loaded into these devices from a cellphone [Para. 0030], suggesting that a user device comprises one or more sensors for determining location, but does not explicitly disclose this.
Wedig does not disclose specifically that a user device communicates location and structure information to an emergency responder.
Wedig discloses that a user device may acknowledge alerts from the server, [Para. 0098, 0100], but not explicitly communication that the user has not responded to a notification, or that such communication is to a responder.
These are known in the prior art, however, and for example:
Ebdon discloses an analogous system and method for controlling an emergency event in a region of interest [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001; 0005], and particularly: (a) a server (20) in communication with mobile communication devices (12) (user devices) such as cellular phones; the mobile device equipped with a location provider (16) (sensor) [Fig. 1-2; Para. 0018, 0024, 0028]; and (b) that the mobile device receives evacuation instructions from the server (step 103) [Fig. 2; Para. 0019-0020].
Ebdon also discloses examples where user device location and ancillary information about condition and progress along an evacuation route are relayed (communicated) through a server to first responders [Fig. 4; Para. 0040].
Russell discloses a system and method for communicating emergency information [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-3; Para. 0001, 0012], and specifically that if a subscriber fails to acknowledge the emergency media channel, the emergency alert server and/or the emergency response service server may cause a notice to be sent to one or more emergency response services personnel to request a follow-up action with the subscriber [Fig. 3; Para. 0040]. Russell additionally discloses that alternate media channels may be inhibited until an acknowledgement has been received [Para. 0036-0037, 0041-0042].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention that a user mobile device in communication with a server be equipped with sensors for determining the mobile device location, that the server provide alerts to the mobile device regarding an evacuation condition and/or route, and that specific information regarding mobile device location and conditions at that location may be communicated through a server to responders as taught by Ebdon, and to notify an emergency responder by communication through the server if a notification is not acknowledged as taught by Russell, as applied to an evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig, in order that specific evacuation event details may be provided to the mobile device according to its current location, from the mobile device to responders so that responders may assist, and where a non-response to an alert may indicate that the subscriber is incapacitated or unaware of the evacuation requirement, and in need of special attention by responders.
Consider claim 21 and as applied to claim 2: The evacuation system of claim 2, wherein the system server is configured to monitor the location of the user device and alerting the user a second time if the user device is not moving away from the location of the evacuation condition. Ebdon discloses an example in which, if it is detected that a user deviates from a planned evacuation route, the user is contacted to determine a cause, and if available, a new route is provided to the user [Ebdon: Fig. 4; Para. 0039-0040].
Consider claim 23 and as applied to claim 20: The evacuation system of claim 20, wherein the system server is configured to monitor the location of the user device and alert the emergency responder a second time if the user device is not moving away from the location of the evacuation condition. Ebdon discloses an example in which, if it is detected that a user deviates from a planned evacuation route, the user is contacted to determine a cause, and if available, a new route is provided to the user [Ebdon: Fig. 4; Para. 0039-0040].
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Wedig et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0241877 A1), hereinafter Wedig, Ebdon et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0136463 A1), hereinafter Ebdon), hereinafter Ebdon, Russell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0143801 A1), hereinafter Russell, and further in view of Hurtubise et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2010/0056886 A1), hereinafter Hurtubise.
Consider claim 7 and as applied to claim 6: The evacuation system of claim 6, wherein the system server stores the collected data when not in communications range of the user device and communicates the stored data and timestamps to the user device when the user devices comes into communications range of the system server.
Wedig discloses that the service may store collected data and communicate it to a user device [Para. 0100, 0103, 0106], and also that detected information from sensing nodes and statistics relating to evacuation conditions may be time stamped [Para. 0086].
Ebdon similarly discloses that the server stores information and communicates the information to a portable user device [Para. 0023-0024].
Neither Wedig nor Ebdon specifically discloses the collection of data for a device out of communication range, for communication when the device comes into range. This was known in the prior art, however, and for example:
Hurtubise discloses a vital sign monitor system and method [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1-2; Para. 0005-0006] and particularly that patient data is collected with time-stamp and communicated when within range of a base unit, or stored for later communication when out of range [Para. 0006].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to collect data with an associated time stamp, to communicate the data when in communication range, or to store for later communication when not in communication range as taught by Hurtubise and applied to a user device and evacuation system as taught by Wedig and modified by Ebdon and Russell, in order that a complete an uninterrupted data record is maintained even when communication links are subject to interruption.
Consider claim 19 and as applied to claim 14: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
storing the received sensory data when the system server is not in communications range of the user device; and
communicating the stored sensory data and data timestamps to the user device when the user devices comes into communications range of the system server.
This claim is rejected based on the same references, citations and analysis as for claim 7 previously, and as applied to claim 14.
Claims 12, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Wedig et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0241877 A1), hereinafter Wedig, Ebdon et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0136463 A1), hereinafter Ebdon, Russell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0143801 A1), hereinafter Russell, and further in view of Nguyen et al (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2009/0115621 A1), hereinafter Nguyen, and Carson et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US2010/0198374 A1), hereinafter Carson.
Consider claim 12 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device receives conditions of a user and the evacuation route is determined using those conditions.
Wedig also does not specifically disclose determination of an escape route based in part on user physical limitations.
These are also known in the prior art, however, and for example:
Carson discloses a system and method for controlling ergonomic settings as a worksite [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0021-0024] and particularly that a worksite subsystem (74), part of a worksite computer (78), may be used to collect user physical limitations and/or changes thereto [Fig. 1; Para. 0036, 0078].
Nguyen discloses analogous systems and methods for providing location-specific information from a server to users through a wireless network [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1A-B; Para. 0004-0007] and particularly an exemplary notification with instructions for leaving a building in an emergency, in which the notification may be customized in consideration of a user physical condition, such as to direct a user identified to use a wheel chair to an exit path that accommodates wheel chairs [Fig. 1A-B; Para. 0022-0025 (particularly Para. 0024), 0109; claim 23].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention to customize notifications to individual users based on known physical limitation or disability of the user, the customized notification comprising a determined exit path which accommodates the limitation as taught by Nguyen, and that user physical limitations may be collected and communicated by a user worksite computing device (such as a user portable device or smartphone) as taught by Carson, applied to a user device. evacuation system and method as taught by Wedig as modified by Ebdon and Russell, in order that specific evacuation event details may be provided to the mobile device according to its current location, and accommodate users with special needs.
Consider claim 18 and as applied to claim 14: The method of claim 14, further comprising:
receiving a condition of the user by the user device; and
determining the evacuation route at least partially using the received condition.
This claim is rejected based on the same references, citations and analysis as for claim 12 previously, and as applied to claim 14.
Consider claim 22 and as applied to claim 18: The method of claim 18, further comprising:
monitoring the location of the user device and alerting the user a second time if the user device is not moving away from the location of the evacuation condition. Ebdon discloses an example in which, if it is detected that a user deviates from a planned evacuation route, the user is contacted to determine a cause, and if available, a new route is provided to the user [Ebdon: Fig. 4; Para. 0039-0040].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 USC §103 as unpatentable over Wedig et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0241877 A1), hereinafter Wedig, Ebdon et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2011/0136463 A1), hereinafter Ebdon), hereinafter Ebdon, Russell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0143801 A1), hereinafter Russell, and further in view of Hunter et al. (United States Patent Application Publication # US 2003/0069002 A1), hereinafter Hunter.
Consider claim 13 and as applied to claim 1: The evacuation system of claim 1, wherein the user device prevents communication of the alert when the user device is located in an area not effected by detected evacuation condition.
Wedig does not specifically disclose: that the user device will alert a user of an evacuation condition of a particular structure only if the user device is within a predetermined distance from that structure. This was known in analogous prior art, however, and for example:
Hunter discloses a system and method for emergency notification [Title; Abstract; Fig. 1; Para. 0003, 0015], wherein the system may comprise a plurality of EFAN devices (sensory nodes) (110) that monitor a plurality of individual homes or buildings (102, 104) (geographically separated structures) and wherein information regarding a detected [evacuation] condition is communicated to a central host (120) [Fig. 2; Para. 0075, 0080] and based on a determined emergency (evacuation) condition an alert is communicated to EFAN devices in order to warn users. Hunter further discloses embodiments in which an alert is filtered, to be sent to only a subset of user devices based on a location of the user device, and in particular directing a notification only to those users having a location within a predetermined proximity to an emergency [Para. 0016; (see also: Hunter: Para. 0012-0014, 0122)].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing for the invention that a determined emergency alert communicated by the host to user devices in response to the information may be filtered such that only a user within a predetermined proximity to the detected emergency event receive the alert (an users beyond the predetermined distance are not alerted, as taught by Hunter and applied to the method and system for managing an evacuation as taught by Wedig and modified by Ebdon and Russell, in order to prevent users for which an alert does not pertain from being disturbed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Grube, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2019/0110159 A1) disclosing the providing of evacuation information during an adverse condition.
Zhang (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2014/0320282 A1) disclosing a building evacuation system with positive acknowledgment.
Compton, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2012/0173137 A1) disclosing an optimal route solution.
Eisold, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication # US 2007/0252688 A1) disclosing a disaster alert device and system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to STEPHEN R BURGDORF whose telephone number is (571)270-7328. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Friday at 11:00 AM to 8:00 PM EST/EDT.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571)272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/STEPHEN R BURGDORF/ Examiner, Art Unit 2685