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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the office action from 3/19/2026, the applicant has submitted an amendment, file 6/16/2026, amending claims 1, 2, 5, 12, 13, and 16, while arguing to traverse the prior art and 101 rejections. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot with respect to new grounds of rejections further in view of Starr et al. (US Patent 12,423,790) mandated by the latest amendments and for the reasons explained in the response to arguments.
Response to Arguments
In what follows, applicant’s arguments and comments will be addressed in the order presented, but similar arguments are grouped together.
After providing a broad overview of the latest amendments on page 8 ¶’s 1-2, the remainder of pages 8 and 9 are devoted to trivia pertaining to related MPEP rules to subject matter eligibility without any specific arguments.
On page 10 the first ¶ lines 2-3 it is asserted: “the claimed invention clearly integrates any such exception into a practical application by providing specific improvements to computer technology and human-machine interaction systems”; this is supported by the 2nd ¶ lines 1-3: “The claimed invention addresses the specific technical problem of digital assistants failing to proactively monitor user actions after providing a recommendation”. On a similar topic pertaining to “improvement”, on page 12 the 2nd ¶ lines 2-3, it is asserted: “The claims are narrowly drawn to a specific method of improving digital-assistant responsiveness and safety, and they do not preempt all ways of monitoring human tasks or tracing context”. Similarly on page 12 the 3rd ¶ last 4 lines, it is asserted: “The claims are directed to specific improvements in interactive data processing technology, not to abstract mental processes”.
Respectfully, there appears to be a misunderstanding to what constitutes “improvement” as required by USTPO; “To make the determination of whether these claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology, the court looked to the teachings of the specification. Specifically, the court identified the specification’s teachings that the claimed invention achieves other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements” (Enfish memorandum of 5/19/2016); and/or “An “improvement in computer-related technology” is not limited to improvements in the operation of a computer or a computer network per se, but may also be claimed as a set of “rules” (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer” (MCRO memorandum of 11/2/2016).
These arguments should have demonstrated how the “additional elements” (e.g., the “electronic processor” in claim 12) by virtue of one or more of the claim limitations could e.g., demonstrate “smaller memory requirements” or basically run “faster”. The quoted items do not adhere to these requirements.
On page 10 the ¶ before last after copying the latest amendments to claim 1 pertaining to use of “trained classifier to extract video analytics data related to the user’s action or inaction”, it is concluded: “This structure cannot be practically executed in the human mind, as the human mind cannot ingest a digital data “video stream,” execute a “video-analytics engine,” or apply a ‘trained classifier” to analyze pixel vectors in real time to assess compliance”.
As an initial matter the claim is silent on use of any “pixel vectors”, and/or specifically associating the “video stream” to be “digital data”. Secondly, to merely mention “apply” a “trained classifier” does not make a claim patent eligible. This amounts to using a well known additional element to carry out a routine operation; i.e., there is no impact by the “trained data” following the “apply” it operation back on the “trained classifier”, e.g., by modifying the training data used following the “apply” it operation on the “classifier” by the “classifier” for other future choirs, e.g. adding them to their trained data to be used in any future event.
On page 11 ¶’s 1 and 2 respectively two separate case laws are mentioned without any specific parallel between them and the instant application; i.e., there is no analogy between a claim related to “network” “traffic” (“Example 40”) which requires “packets” which do not possess any human generated equivalent and the instant application claim’s “video stream” which is associated with image data that can easily be generated by a human by simple drawing. Likewise, there is no parallel between the instant application and the “Example 45”; e.g., respectfully which claim limitation here maps to “send control signals to an injection molding apparatus”.
Pages 12-13, item “1” pertaining to the 102(a)(1) rejections, concludes: “Because Myshenin uses the location data simply to flag the violation, it does not perform a subsequent, separate check to determine if there has been a change in contextual data to evaluate a correlation with the user’s non-compliance”.
Although initially a change in “location” by the “officer” resulted in the “electronic computing device” “determine[ing] that” “the” “officer” “is not acting in accordance with the instruction” (¶ 00106), but since the “officer” is constantly moving, at least by responding to “a manual override” “instruction” (¶ 00107), then in reverse also so long as the “officer” is not back to the “first geofence”, the “electronic computing device” will still “determine” that he is not back to the “first geofence” which means there has been a change in the contextual data; i.e., there is a one on one correspondence between the “officer” “not acting in accordance with” “third location” (i.e., claim’s non-compliance) and the user not being within the “first geofence” (change in contextual data); i.e., not being within the “first geofence” implies “not acting in accordance …” and vice versa “not acting in accordance …” (not responsive to following recommendation) is in response to being out of the “first geofence” (implies change in contextual data); e.g., the “officer” may inadvertently move from the “first” to the “second” “geofence” and receive an “instruction” and as long as he is not back to the “first geofence”, the “electronic device” his “location” as changed (i.e., still a changed contextual data).
On page 13 pertaining to the item “2” (lines 8+), it is asserted: “Under the Examiner’s own mapping, the user’s movement into the prohibited geofence is used as both the act of “not following the recommendation” and the “change in the contextual data.” “This results in a circular correlation where the user’s non-compliance is simply correlated with itself. In contrast, claim 1 requires evaluating two distinct variables: (1) the user not following the recommendation, and (2) a separate, independent “change in the contextual data currently available” to determine if the latter explains the former”.
Respectfully this last sentence is itself a contradictory statement with its resulting conclusion and is inconsistent with the claim requirements, i.e., at a high level two things (the so-called “variables” above) cannot be “correlated” and at the mean time, be “independent” and “separate”. According to the Merriam Webster “correlation” is defined as: “statistics, the degree of correlation between two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements” “the interdependence or reciprocal relations of organs or functions”; i.e., two “attributes”, “relations” and/or “functions” that don’t have any “interdependence” (i.e., are independent) cannot by definition be “correlate[ed]”.
Next the office action clearly mapped the movement from the “first geofence” into the “second geofence” as the claim’s “change in contextual data”, and the “officer” “not acting in accordance with the instruction” to the claim’s “not following the recommendation”. The latter is mandated by the former and thus by definition of the word “correlation” there is an “interdependence” “or reciprocal relation” between them, they are correlated as the latter could not have existed without the former.
Item “3” on pages 13-14 is an argument directed at the latest amendments; please visit the new office action for further details.
Regarding item “4” (lines 6+) on page 14, it is asserted “Under claim 1, it is the electronic computing device itself that must generate the updated recommendation responsive to determining that the correlation exists” “Myshenin’s system requires a human supervisor to intervene” “rather than being automatically generated by the electronic device”. A similar argument is presented on pages 15-16 starting the last ¶ of page 15.
As an initial matter, one cannot find the phrase “automatically generated” in the corresponding limitation; the limitation merely requires “generating, at the electronic computing device, an updated” “recommendation”, without providing any details on how the “electronic device” generated or obtained the “recommendation”; the core requirement is simply that the “recommendation” was delivered by the “electronic device”. According to Myshenin ¶ 0095 lines 3+ “the instruction” (i.e., the updated recommendation) “provided on a display” “an audio notification provided with the speaker” “of the communication device” (is provided via the electronic device). The argument would have been valid if the “supervisor” had verbally notified the “officer”, without use of “the communication device”.
Regarding item “5” on page 14, the argument is directed at the latest amendments. Please visit the new office action further in view of Starr et al..
Regarding the argument on page 15 the 2nd ¶, pertaining to “contextual data” “compris[ing]” the “physical and environmental conditions” in the dependent claim 5, is directed at the latest amendments, with support on the new claims 21 and 22. Please visit the new office action for further details.
Regarding claim 3, on page 15 the 3rd ¶ lines 6+, it is asserted: “Claim 3 explicitly requires the electronic computing device to identify the procedure itself based on the available contextual data. In contrast, Myshenin does not dynamically identify or recommend tasks based on contextual data”.
According to Myshenin ¶ 00102 lines 4-6: “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence” “to be a location of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” “and the first task may be evidence collection”. Clearly, if the “officer” (user) was not located at the “center of the first geofence” (based on a contextual data available to the user), he would not have been “task[ed]” with “evidence collection” (a first procedure), and therefore the “evidence collection” is based on being at the “center of the first geofence”. Furthermore, the “evidence collection” is intuitively a first “procedure” to e.g. assess impacts of a “fire” hazard and it only makes sense if the “fire” is within that “geofence”.
Regarding the argument pertaining to the claim 9 on page 16 the 2nd ¶ lines 6+, it is asserted: “Claim 9 explicitly requires the system to determine that a lack of correlation exists, and responsively prompt the user to follow the previously provided recommendation, In contrast, paragraph [00122] of Myshenin describes a scenario where an environmental condition worsens (a fire spreads), causing the system to issue a new, updated task”.
Recall from the parent claim 1: the “officer” “enter[ing]” “the second geofence” (change of the contextual data) was correlated with the “officer” “not acting in accordance with the instructions” (following the recommendation). However, since the “geofence associate with fire” is “expand[ed]” (¶ 00122 page 44 lines 2+ (“currently available to the user” “contextual data” is therefore altered)). Then the updated contextual data is no longer correlated with the user not following the recommendation, e.g., since the “officer” could be in a location within a former “second geofence” which resulted in “determine[ing] that the first public safety officer” “is not acting in accordance with the instruction” (not following the recommendation). Furthermore, the “task list” is part of the “instruction” (recommendation), because according to ¶ 0093 S1: “the electronic computing device may provide instructions that indicate actions that are to be avoided during performance of the first task (at block 340)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, 12-18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because :
Claims 1, 12 correspond to “method” and “device” respectively of a claimed invention that is rejected under 35 U.D.C. directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims are about how a “digital-assistant” can guide a “user” (e.g. a “fire fighter”) through his tasks using “contextual data” (Sp. ¶ 0092 S4+: “contextual data correspond[s]” to “a number of “ “contextual parameters” “contextual parameters may include a task assigned to the user for responding to an incident, user’s health status” “tool, or vehicle used by the user, environmental data”). This is done via “recommendations” (e.g., Sp. ¶ 0015 S4: “the fire fighter begins to spray water in the direction recommended by the digital assistant”).
Next the “digital assistant” “determin[es]” if the “user” is “not following the recommendation” by determining a “correlation” (and/or lack of “correlation”) “between the user not following the recommendation and the change in the contextual data” (Sp. ¶ 0092 2nd col. Lines 20+: “in the firefighter example” “assume the electronic computing device” “recommend[s]” “a particular direction for spraying water based on sensor data” “indicating” “wind speed of 4 mph” “Responsive to the firefighter not following the” “recommendation” “the electronic” “device” “obtains” “current wind speech of 28 mph”); i.e., here in summary “spray” “direction” (a recommendation) was based on an “environmental” (“context”) data of “wind speed” of “4mph”, and the “user” not using that “direction” gets attributed to change of “wind speed” to “28 mph” (change in “contextual data”). In that case the “digital assistant” gives an “updated” “recommendation” based on e.g., the “28 mph” (updated “contextual data”), provided that it determines there is “correlation” between the “updated” “recommendation” and “contextual data available corresponding to the user” (e.g., a “spray” “direction” consistent with “28mph”). These “recommendations” are also all done via “visual” “and/or audio output device” “associated with the user”.
These limitations can all be carried out by a human accomplice with the “fire fighter” e.g., if the latter is in training. The human accomplice could direct the “fire fighter” to a certain direction based on ambient environmental conditions and if the “firefighter” is not following a recommendation, that determines that it is attributed to e.g., wind direction and/or intensity change and the human accomplice being professional could determine adjustments to the spray direction and/or intensity if the firefighter had not already done so and dictate them as updated recommendation. The most recent amendment pertaining to “processing the video stream” “to extract video analytics data related to the user’s action or inaction” amounts to no more than using a video for data gathering of the environment using observations which falls under one of the mental processes identified as “observation” and furthermore which is something that e.g., the human accomplice can use to better assess his observations by storing or recording his observations to determine whether the firefighter’s actions comply with the accomplice’s recommendations.
Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “computing device” and “output device” (claim 1 as extra solution activity), “electronic processor” (claim 12 preamble), nothing in the claim limitations precludes them from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite only one additional element using a “processor” to perform all the above claim limitations. The said “processor” is recited at a high-level of generality; i.e., ¶ 0074: “for example, a microprocessor or another electronic device) coupled, by the common data and address bus 217, to a Random Access Memory (RAM) 204 and a static memory 216”. Therefore, as this “processor” alone is responsible for all the claim limitations, it fails to imposes any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “processor” to perform all the claim limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not therefore patent eligible.
Regarding claims 2, or 13, the human accomplice could provide guidance to the firefighter without any input from the firefighter in cases when the firefighter is a beginner.
Regarding claims 3-4, 14-15, the human accomplice providing guidance to the firefighter does follow the firefighter to a fire incident and can and will identify a series of procedures necessary including identification of a first and foremost important procedure at the scene of the incident dependent on the incident and second, third …etc procedures as needed.
Regarding claims 5, 16, 21, or 22, the human accomplice providing guidance will likely base his recommendations based on environmental and physical parameters ambient to the firefighter (e.g. wind, temperature).
Regarding claims 6, or 17, the human accomplice providing guidance (e.g. assigns tasks) can and will provide according to “contextual data” (e.g. environmental conditions).
Regarding claim 7, the human accomplice can and will be to provide tasks associated with first aid contextual data (i.e. health data) for individuals affected by the fire incident currently under containment.
Regarding claims 8, or 18 the human accomplice can and will provide information on tools contextual data (e.g., first aid equipment and/or fire extinguishing tools).
Regarding claim 9, the human accomplice can and will try to emphasize a recommendation and/or part of it not fully followed a first time by the fire fighter regardless of how the actions of the firefighter may correlate with e.g. environmental conditions.
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) 1-9, 12-18 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MYSHENIN et al. (WO 2020/1974180), and further in view of Starr et al. (US Patent (12,423,790).
Regarding claim 1, MYSHENIN et al. do teach a method of updating a digital-assistant recommendation in response to a user not following the recommendation (¶ 0015 S1: “Disclosed are, among other things, a method, device, and system for an electronic digital assistant” (digital assistant) “to coordinate task zones” (to make and monitor recommendations to users; e.g., ¶ 00104 lines 4-5: “may determine that the first public safety officer is not acting in accordance with the instruction” (such as determining an “instruction” ( a recommendation) not being followed by a user)) and according to ¶ 00124 lines 8-9: “the electronic digital assistant” (the digital assistant) “may provide another instruction” (may update its recommendation)),
the method comprising:
generating, at an electronic computing device, a digital-assistant recommendation for a user based on contextual data currently available corresponding to the user (¶ 00103 lines 1-3: “instruction” (a digital assistant recommendation) “provided to the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” (at an electronic device of a user) “instructs the first public safety officer to move or remain outside of the second geofence” (based on a contextual data));
providing, at the electronic computing device, via a visual and/or audio output device associated with the user, a first visual and/or audio output including the digital-assistant recommendation, and responsively monitoring whether the user is following the digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 0095 lines 3+: “the instruction” (the recommendation) “includes at least one of a visual notification” (is provided by a visual output) “provided on a display” “an audio notification provided with the speaker 222 of the communication device” (and an audio output device); ¶ 00103 lines 5+: “the electronic computing device may monitor” (responsively monitoring whether) “the location of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” (the user) “to determine violations of the instruction” (is following the digital assistant recommendations));
wherein monitoring comprises, subsequent to providing the digital-assistant recommendation, receiving a video stream captured corresponding to the user, processing the video stream using a video audio analytics engine to extract video analytics data related to user's action or inaction, and determining that the user's action or inaction does not comply with one or more instructions included in the digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 00108 lines 4-6: “the electronic computing device may determine that the first public safety officer” (the user’s action and/or no action is assessed) “is violating” (to determine if he does not comply with the) “the instruction” (the e.g., digital-assistant recommendation) “based on analyzing a video stream” (by processing a received video stream of the user) “provided by a camera”);
responsive to determining that the user is not following the recommendation, determining, at the electronic computing device, that there has been a change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user since generating the digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 00104 lines 4+: “the electronic computing device” (at the electronic computing device) “may then determine that the first public safety officer” (determining the user) “is not acting in accordance with the instruction” (is not following the recommendation) “based on determining that the third location of the communication device 200” “For example, the electronic computing device may determine that the first public safety officer has entered” “the second geofence” (by determining a change in contextual data));
determining, at the electronic computing device, whether there is a correlation between the user not following the recommendation and the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user (¶ 00106 last 5 lines: “the electronic computing device may determine that the first public safety officer” “may still be located within the second geofence” (the change in the contextual data i.e., the movement from the “first geofence” to the ”second geofence” is correlated to) “determining that the first safety officer is not acting in accordance with the instruction” (not following the recommendation i.e., moving to a location not permitted by the recommendation) “provides an indication to the supervisor” “to communicate with the first public safety officer”)
by verifying that the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user exceeds a predefined threshold (¶0083 S2: “In some embodiments, the electronic computing device compares a location of the center point and radius of the first geofence” “in other words, a first task zone” “to the center point and radius of the second geofence” “in other words, a second task zone” (i.e., if the “public safety officer” (user) is still “within the second geofence”, that means it is at a distance greater or exceeds the “radius of the first geofence” (a threshold of the “first geofence” (contextual data));
responsive to determining that there is the correlation between the user not following the recommendation and the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user, generating, at the electronic computing device, an updated digital-assistant recommendation for the user based at least in part on the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user (¶ 00106 last 5 lines- ¶ 00107 last S: “the electronic computing device may determine that the first public safety office” “may still be located within the second geofence” (in response to the change in the contextual data i.e., the movement from the “first geofence” to the ”second geofence”) “determining that the first safety officer is not acting in accordance with the instruction” (which is correlated to not following the recommendation i.e., moving to a location not permitted by the recommendation) “to the supervisor” “to communicate with the first public safety officer” “the supervisor provides a manual override” (updating) “of the instruction” (the digital assistant recommendation) “from the electronic computing device” (at the electronic computing device)) ; and
providing, at the electronic computing device, via the visual and/or audio output device associated with the user, a second visual and/or audio output including the updated digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 00107 last S: “the supervisor provides” (providing) “a manual override” (the updated) “of the instruction” (digital assistant recommendation) “from the electronic computing device” (at the electronic computing device, which according to ¶ 0095 lines 3+: “the instruction” (e.g., the updated recommendation) “includes at least one of a visual notification” (is provided by a visual output) “provided on a display” “an audio notification provided with the speaker 222 of the communication device” (and/or an audio output device)).
MYSHENIN et al. do not specifically disclose:
Processing the video stream using a video-analytics engine programmed with a trained classifier to extract video analytics data related to the user’s action or inaction.
Starr et al. do teach:
Processing the video stream using a video-analytics engine programmed with a trained classifier to extract video analytics data related to the user’s action or inaction (Col. 13 lines 18-33: “analyzing” “sensor data comprising a plurality of images” (analyzing a video stream by) “based on a trained model comprising a” “classifier” (a trained classifier) “configurable to” “identify” “one or more persons engaging in at least one action” (to determine a “person’s” (user’s) action or inaction) “the one or more persons are performing the composite event in behavior indicative of an unsafe practice” (which do not comply with safety recommendations)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the functions of the “trained” “classifier” pertaining to “images” of Starr et al. into the “electronic computing device” of MYSHENIN et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable MYSHENIN et al. to determine based on “analyzing” its “video stream” of its “public safety officer” if he is engaged “in behavior indicative of an unsafe practice” as disclosed in Starr et al. Col. 13 lines 30-33.
Regarding claim 2, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 1, wherein generating the updated digital-assistant recommendation
comprises:
generating the updated digital-assistant recommendation without receiving user input during a time period after generating the digital-assistant recommendation (the “provid[ing] a manual override ….” (updated recommendation ¶ 00107 last S) follows without any input from the “first public safety officer” (the user) and according to ¶ 00107 page 38 lines 9-10: “the supervisor moves to the fourth location of the first public safety officer” (after a duration of time from when the “first public safety officer” (the user) had moved to “the fourth location” i.e., a “location” outside of the “first geofence” which amounted to not obeying the first recommendation which corresponds to an event following the first recommendation)).
Regarding claim 3, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 1, wherein generating the digital-assistant recommendation comprises:
determining that the user is assigned to respond to an incident (¶ 00102 lines 4-6: “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence to be a location of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” (determining that the user is assigned a “public safety” task wherein according to ¶ 00102 lines 3-4 “includes movement of public safety officers at the incident scene” (is associated to responding to an incident));
identifying, based on the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user, a first procedure to be followed by the user in responding to the incident (¶ 00102 lines 4-6: “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence” (based on the contextual data) “to be a location of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” (the user) “and the first task may be evidence collection” (a first procedure is assigned to the user to respond to));
and
including the first procedure to be followed by the user in the digital-assistant
recommendation (¶ 00102 lines 4-6: “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence to be a location of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” “and the first task may be evidence collection” ((the first procedure is delegated via “the electronic computing device” (i.e. it is a digital-assistant recommendation because according to ¶ 0070 last S: “the electronic computing device activates the electronic digital assistant whenever communication devices 200 of public safety officers are in use to allow the electronic digital assistant to monitor public safety incidents”)).
Regarding claim 4, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 3, wherein generating the updated digital-assistant recommendation
comprises:
identifying, based at least in part on the change in contextual data currently available corresponding to the user, a second procedure to be followed by the user in responding to the incident (¶ 00107 last S: “the supervisor provides” “a manual override” (the updated) “of the instruction” (digital assistant recommendation) “from the electronic computing device” “to allow the public safety officer to remain within the second geofence” (identifying based on movement from the “first” to the “second geofence” (the change in contextual data) another procedure namely to “remain within the second geofence” compared the initial “instruction” (recommendation) of remaining within “the first geofence”) ; and
including the second procedure to be followed by the user in the updated digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 00107 last S: “the supervisor provides” “a manual override” (the updated) “of the instruction” (digital assistant recommendation) “from the electronic computing device” “to allow the public safety officer to remain within the second geofence” (is associated with the second task)).
Regarding claim 5, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 3, wherein the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user comprises physical and environmental conditions surrounding the user captured corresponding to a location of the incident prior to generating the digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 00102 lines 3-6: “instructions” (the digital assistant recommendations follow) “to public safety officers performing tasks includes movement of public safety officers at the incident scene” (the incident) “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence” (wherein the contextual data) “to be a location” (is an environmental data associated with a location of the “incident” (incident)) “of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer”; e.g., ¶ 00100: “For example, when the fire was a small, contained fire, the geofence” (the contextual data comprises) “associated with a fire extinguishing task may have been established as a fifty meter radius from the location” (a location) “of the fire” (and a physical and environmental condition surrounding the user) “This geofence may not have overlapped with another geofence associated with an evidence collection task that was sixty meters away from the fire. However, in response to determining that the fire has spread to be near explosive” (another physical and environmental condition surrounding the user of explosive type) “chemicals, the electronic computing device may increase the radius of the geofence to one hundred meters”; ¶ 0116 lines 10+: “The task(s) to be performed in the geofence” (contextual data) “445 may include preventing the flammable chemical” (corresponds further to a physical and environmental condition of chemical type) “440 from further leaking and preventing/extinguishing a fire caused by the flammable chemical 440”).
Regarding claim 6, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 3, wherein the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user comprises a task currently assigned to the user for responding to the incident (¶ 00107 last S: “the supervisor provides” “a manual override” (the updated) “of the instruction” (digital assistant recommendation) “from the electronic computing device” “to allow the public safety officer to remain within the second geofence” (is a task currently assigned to the user and is in response associated with the “incident scene” (¶ 00102 line 4 the incident) and also is associated with “geofence” (contextual data)).
Regarding claim 7, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 3, wherein the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user comprises health data captured corresponding to the user or another person associated with the incident (¶ 00102 lines 6-7: “Continuing this example, the electronic computing device may establish the second geofence” (the current contextual data of the user as the user is in the ”second geofence”) “around a location of an injured victim” (corresponds to health of another person associated with the “incident scene” (i.e., the incident))).
Regarding claim 8, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 3, wherein the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user comprises a current state of operation of an equipment, a vehicle, or a tool used by the user to respond to the incident (¶ 00102 lines 3-6: “instructions” (the digital assistant recommendations are in response to) “to public safety officers performing tasks includes movement of public safety officers at the incident scene” (the incident) “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence” (with the available contextual data) “to be a location” “of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” “and the first task may be evidence collection” wherein according to ¶ 0084 line 14 comprises: “collecting evidence includes wearing of gloves” (a tool used to respond to the incident) “and avoiding introduction of additional chemicals/substances into the area where the evidence is located (for example, to avoid contamination/destruction of the evidence”).
Regarding claim 9, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
responsive to determining that there is no correlation between the user not following the recommendation and the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user, generating, at the electronic computing device, a digital-assistant prompt reminding the user to follow the digital-assistant recommendation previously provided to the user ( ¶ 00122 page 44 lines 2+: “The electronic digital assistant 515 may” “modify a geofence associated with” “fire” “For example, the electronic digital assistant 515 expands the geofence associated with fire” (i.e., a “geofence” (contextual data) change to the “first public safety officer” or “firefighter” (first user) which is not correlated with e.g., the user moving from the “first geofence” to the “second geofence” (not following the recommendation)) “the electronic digital assistant 515 also provides an updated instruction” (a digital assistant prompt is provided) “and/or task list” (reminding the user to follow its recommendations)); and
providing, via the visual and/or audio output device associated with the user, a third visual and/or audio output including the digital-assistant prompt (all the “instructions” (recommendations) are provided according to ¶ 0095 lines 3+: “the instruction” (e.g., the updated recommendation) “includes at least one of a visual notification” (is provided by a visual output) “provided on a display” “an audio notification provided with the speaker 222 of the communication device” (and/or an audio output device)).
Regarding claim 12, MYSHENIN et al. do teach an electronic computing device comprises:
An electronic processor; and a visual and/or audio output device communicatively coupled to the electronic processor (¶ 0057 S1: “FIG. 2 sets forth a schematic diagram that illustrates a communication device 200” (an electronic computing device) which as Fig. 2 and ¶ 0065 S1 teach comprises of the “electronic processor 213” (an electronic processor) “has ports for coupling to the display screen 205” (communicatively coupled to a visual output device) “the speaker 222” (and an audio output device communicatively coupled to));
the electronic processor configured to:
generate a digital-assistant recommendation for a user based on contextual data currently available corresponding to the user (¶ 00103 lines 1-3: “instruction” (a digital assistant recommendation) “provided to the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” (at an electronic device of a user) “instructs the first public safety officer to move or remain outside of the second geofence” (based on a contextual data));
provide, via a visual and/or audio output device associated with the user, a first visual and/or audio output including the digital-assistant recommendation, and responsively monitor whether the user is following the digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 0095 lines 3+: “the instruction” (the recommendation) “includes at least one of a visual notification” (is provided by a visual output) “provided on a display” “an audio notification provided with the speaker 222 of the communication device” (and an audio output device); ¶ 00103 lines 5+: “the electronic computing device may monitor” (responsively monitoring whether) “the location of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” (the user) “to determine violations of the instruction” (is following the digital assistant recommendations));
wherein to monitor, the electronic processor is configured to, subsequent to providing the digital-assistant recommendation, receive a video stream captured corresponding to the user, process the video stream using a video audio analytics engine to extract video analytics data related to user's action or inaction, and determine that the user's action or inaction does not comply with one or more instructions included in the digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 00108 lines 4-6: “the electronic computing device may determine that the first public safety officer” (the user’s action and/or no action is assessed) “is violating” (to determine if he does not comply with the) “the instruction” (the e.g., digital-assistant recommendation) “based on analyzing a video stream” (by processing a received video stream of the user) “provided by a camera”);
responsive to determining that the user is not following the recommendation, determine that there has been a change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user since generating the digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 00104 lines 4+: “the electronic computing device” (at the electronic computing device) “may then determine that the first public safety officer” (determining the user) “is not acting in accordance with the instruction” (is not following the recommendation) “based on determining that the third location of the communication device 200” “For example, the electronic computing device may determine that the first public safety officer has entered” “the second geofence” (by determining a change in contextual data));
determine whether there is a correlation between the user not following the recommendation and the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user (¶ 00106 last 5 lines: “the electronic computing device may determine that the first public safety officer” “may still be located within the second geofence” (the change in the contextual data i.e., the movement from the “first geofence” to the ”second geofence” is correlated to) “determining that the first safety officer is not acting in accordance with the instruction” (not following the recommendation i.e., moving to a location not permitted by the recommendation or not) “provides an indication to the supervisor” “to communicate with the first public safety officer”);
by verifying that the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user exceeds a predefined threshold (¶0083 S2: “In some embodiments, the electronic computing device compares a location of the center point and radius of the first geofence” “in other words, a first task zone” “to the center point and radius of the second geofence” “in other words, a second task zone” (i.e., if the “public safety officer” (user) is still “within the second geofence”, that means it is at a distance greater or exceeds the “radius of the first geofence” (a threshold of the “first geofence” (contextual data));
responsive to determining that there is the correlation between the user not following the recommendation and the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user, generate an updated digital-assistant recommendation for the user based at least in part on the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user (¶ 00106 last 5 lines- ¶ 00107 last S: “the electronic computing device may determine that the first public safety office” “may still be located within the second geofence” (in response to the change in the contextual data i.e., the movement from the “first geofence” to the ”second geofence”) “determining that the first safety officer is not acting in accordance with the instruction” (which is correlated to not following the recommendation i.e., moving to a location not permitted by the recommendation) “to the supervisor” “to communicate with the first public safety officer” “the supervisor provides a manual override” (updating) “of the instruction” (the digital assistant recommendation) “from the electronic computing device” (at the electronic computing device)) ; and
provide, via the visual and/or audio output device associated with the user, a second visual and/or audio output including the updated digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 00107 last S: “the supervisor provides” (providing) “a manual override” (the updated) “of the instruction” (digital assistant recommendation) “from the electronic computing device” (at the electronic computing device, which according to ¶ 0095 lines 3+: “the instruction” (e.g., the updated recommendation) “includes at least one of a visual notification” (is provided by a visual output) “provided on a display” “an audio notification provided with the speaker 222 of the communication device” (and/or an audio output device)).
MYSHENIN et al. do not specifically disclose:
Process the video stream using a video-analytics engine programmed with a trained classifier to extract video analytics data related to the user’s action or inaction.
Starr et al. do teach:
Process the video stream using a video-analytics engine programmed with a trained classifier to extract video analytics data related to the user’s action or inaction (Col. 13 lines 18-33: “analyzing” “sensor data comprising a plurality of images” (analyzing a video stream by) “based on a trained model comprising a” “classifier” (a trained classifier) “configurable to” “identify” “one or more persons engaging in at least one action” (to determine a “person’s” (user’s) action or inaction) “the one or more persons are performing the composite event in behavior indicative of an unsafe practice” (which do not comply with safety recommendations)).
It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the functions of the “trained” “classifier” pertaining to “images” of Starr et al. into the “electronic computing device” of MYSHENIN et al. would enable the combined systems and their associated methods to perform in combination as they do separately and to further enable MYSHENIN et al. to determine based on “analyzing” its “video stream” of its “public safety officer” if he is engaged “in behavior indicative of an unsafe practice” as disclosed in Starr et al. Col. 13 lines 30-33.
Regarding claim 13, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the electronic computing device of claim 12, wherein the electronic processor is configured to generate the updated digital-assistant recommendation without receiving user input during a time period after generating the digital-assistant recommendation (the “provid[ing] a manual override ….” (updated recommendation ¶ 00107 last S) follows without any input from the “first public safety officer” (the user) and according to ¶ 00107 page 38 lines 9-10: “the supervisor moves to the fourth location of the first public safety officer” (after a duration of time from when the “first public safety officer” (the user) had moved to “the fourth location” i.e., a “location” outside of the “first geofence” which amounted to not obeying the first recommendation which corresponds to an event following the first recommendation)).
Regarding claim 14, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the electronic device of claim 12, wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
determine that the user is assigned to respond to an incident (¶ 00102 lines 4-6: “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence to be a location of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” (determining that the user is assigned a “public safety” task wherein according to ¶ 00102 lines 3-4 “includes movement of public safety officers at the incident scene” (is associated to responding to an incident));
identify, based on the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user, a first procedure to be followed by the user in responding to the incident (¶ 00102 lines 4-6: “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence” (based on the contextual data) “to be a location of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” (the user) “and the first task may be evidence collection” (a first procedure is assigned to the user to respond to));
and
including the first procedure to be followed by the user in the digital-assistant
recommendation (¶ 00102 lines 4-6: “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence to be a location of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” “and the first task may be evidence collection” ((the first procedure is delegated via “the electronic computing device” (i.e. it is a digital-assistant recommendation because according to ¶ 0070 last S: “the electronic computing device activates the electronic digital assistant whenever communication devices 200 of public safety officers are in use to allow the electronic digital assistant to monitor public safety incidents”)).
Regarding claim 15, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the electronic computing device of claim 14, wherein the electronic processor is configured to:
identify, based at least in part on the change in contextual data currently available corresponding to the user, a second procedure to be followed by the user in responding to the incident (¶ 00107 last S: “the supervisor provides” “a manual override” (the updated) “of the instruction” (digital assistant recommendation) “from the electronic computing device” “to allow the public safety officer to remain within the second geofence” (identifying based on movement from the “first” to the “second geofence” (the change in contextual data) another procedure namely to “remain within the second geofence” compared the initial “instruction” (recommendation) of remaining within “the first geofence”) ; and
include the second procedure to be followed by the user in the updated digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 00107 last S: “the supervisor provides” “a manual override” (the updated) “of the instruction” (digital assistant recommendation) “from the electronic computing device” “to allow the public safety officer to remain within the second geofence” (is associated with the second task)).
Regarding claim 16, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the electronic computing device of claim 14, wherein the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user comprises physical and environmental conditions surrounding the user captured corresponding to a location of the incident prior to generating the digital-assistant recommendation (¶ 00102 lines 3-6: “instructions” (the digital assistant recommendations follow) “to public safety officers performing tasks includes movement of public safety officers at the incident scene” (the incident) “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence” (wherein the contextual data) “to be a location” (is an environmental data associated with a location of the “incident” (incident)) “of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer”; e.g., ¶ 00100: “For example, when the fire was a small, contained fire, the geofence” (the contextual data comprises) “associated with a fire extinguishing task may have been established as a fifty meter radius from the location” (a location) “of the fire” (and a physical and environmental condition surrounding the user) “This geofence may not have overlapped with another geofence associated with an evidence collection task that was sixty meters away from the fire. However, in response to determining that the fire has spread to be near explosive” (another physical and environmental condition surrounding the user of explosive type) “chemicals, the electronic computing device may increase the radius of the geofence to one hundred meters”; ¶ 0116 lines 10+: “The task(s) to be performed in the geofence” (contextual data) “445 may include preventing the flammable chemical” (corresponds further to a physical and environmental condition of chemical type) “440 from further leaking and preventing/extinguishing a fire caused by the flammable chemical 440”).
Regarding claim 17, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the electronic computing device of claim 14, wherein the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user comprises a task currently assigned to the user for responding to the incident (¶ 00107 last S: “the supervisor provides” “a manual override” (the updated) “of the instruction” (digital assistant recommendation) “from the electronic computing device” “to allow the public safety officer to remain within the second geofence” (is a task currently assigned to the user and is in response associated with the “incident scene” (¶ 00102 line 4 the incident) and also is associated with “geofence” (contextual data)).
Regarding claim 18, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the electronic computing device of claim 14, wherein the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user comprises a current state of operation of an equipment, a vehicle, or a tool used by the user to respond to the incident (¶ 00102 lines 3-6: “instructions” (the digital assistant recommendations are in response to) “to public safety officers performing tasks includes movement of public safety officers at the incident scene” (the incident) “the electronic computing device may establish a center of the first geofence” (with the available contextual data) “to be a location” “of the communication device 200 of the first public safety officer” “and the first task may be evidence collection” wherein according to ¶ 0084 line 14 comprises: “collecting evidence includes wearing of gloves” (a tool used to respond to the incident) “and avoiding introduction of additional chemicals/substances into the area where the evidence is located (for example, to avoid contamination/destruction of the evidence”).
Regarding claim 21, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 5, wherein the physical and environmental conditions comprise at least one of weather, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, water level, and presence of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive substance (¶ 00100: “For example, when the fire was a small, contained fire, the geofence” (the contextual data comprises) “associated with a fire extinguishing task may have been established as a fifty meter radius” “from the location” (a location) “of the fire” (and a physical and environmental condition surrounding the user) “This geofence may not have overlapped with another geofence associated with an evidence collection task that was sixty meters away from the fire. However, in response to determining that the fire has spread to be near explosive” (another physical and environmental condition surrounding the user of explosive type) “chemicals, the electronic computing device may increase the radius of the geofence to one hundred meters”; ¶ 0116 lines 10+: “The task(s) to be performed in the geofence” (contextual data) “445 may include preventing the flammable chemical” (corresponds further to a physical and environmental condition of chemical type) “440 from further leaking and preventing/extinguishing a fire caused by the flammable chemical 440”).
Regarding claim 22, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the electronic computing device of claim 16, wherein the physical and environmental conditions comprise at least one of weather, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, water level, and presence of a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive substance (¶ 00100: “For example, when the fire was a small, contained fire, the geofence” (the contextual data comprises) “associated with a fire extinguishing task may have been established as a fifty meter radius” “from the location” (a location) “of the fire” (and a physical and environmental condition surrounding the user) “This geofence may not have overlapped with another geofence associated with an evidence collection task that was sixty meters away from the fire. However, in response to determining that the fire has spread to be near explosive” (another physical and environmental condition surrounding the user of explosive type) “chemicals, the electronic computing device may increase the radius of the geofence to one hundred meters”; ¶ 0116 lines 10+: “The task(s) to be performed in the geofence” (contextual data) “445 may include preventing the flammable chemical” (corresponds further to a physical and environmental condition of chemical type) “440 from further leaking and preventing/extinguishing a fire caused by the flammable chemical 440”).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Koskan et al. (US 2020/0279390) ¶ 0040 last S: “the application 223 may comprise” “trained video analytics classifiers” (using a trained classifier with a video analytics engine analyzing video) “corresponding to one or more of” “first responders” (of the user which comprises his action). This basically determines “whether the person-of-interest 105 is located within the estimated field of view of the second camera 117” (¶ 0040 S2); determining if a certain “person-of-interest is within a “camera” “field of view” amounts to an identification of this person and falls short of determining his action or activities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARZAD KAZEMINEZHAD whose telephone number is (571)270-5860. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 am to 11:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Paras D. Shah can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/Farzad Kazeminezhad/
Art Unit 2653
August 23rd 2026.
Prosecution Insights