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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/25/2024 and 5/29/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 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.
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, or 16, the human accomplice providing guidance will likely base his recommendations based on environmental parameters (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 how the actions of the firefighter may correlate with e.g. environmental conditions.
Regarding claims 10, or 19, the human accomplice can estimate an allowable threshold distance (a threshold level) that the firefighter can safely approach the fire.
Regarding claims 11, or 20 they are merely corresponding to using a video for data gathering of the environment which is something that e.g., the human accomplice can use to better observe and also store the said observations to determine whether the firefighter’s actions comply with the accomplice’s recommendations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MYSHENIN et al. (WO 2020/197418).
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));
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 or not) “provides an indication to the supervisor” “to communicate with the first public safety officer”);
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)).
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 input from the user 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 environmental data 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”).
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 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 10, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining 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 comprises:
determining that the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user exceeds a threshold level (¶ 0083 S1-2: “At block 325, the electronic computing device determines that the second geofence at least partially overlaps with the first geofence. 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)” (in order for the “first public safety officer” (the first user) to move from the “first” “geofence” zone to the “second” “geofence” (i.e., to not following the “instruction” (recommendation) of staying within the “first” “geofence”) he has to move outside of the “radius of the first geofence” (exceed a threshold level associated with the “geofence” (contextual data)).
Regarding claim 11, MYHENIN et al. do teach the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the user is not following the recommendation 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 information 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 provided to the user (¶ 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”).
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));
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”);
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)).
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 from the user 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 environmental data 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”).
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 19, MYSHENIN et al. do teach the electronic computing device of claim 12, wherein the electronic computing device is configured to determine that there is a correlation between the user not following the recommendation and the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user when the change in the contextual data currently available corresponding to the user exceeds a threshold level (¶ 0083 S1-2: “At block 325, the electronic computing device determines that the second geofence at least partially overlaps with the first geofence. 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)” (in order for the “first public safety officer” (the first user) to move from the “first” “geofence” zone to the “second” “geofence” (i.e., correlated with not following the “instruction” (recommendation) of staying within the “first” “geofence”) he has to move outside of the “radius of the first geofence” (exceed a threshold level associated with the “geofence” (contextual data)).
Regarding claim 20, MYHENIN et al. do teach the electronic computing device of claim 12, wherein the electronic computing device 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 information 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 provided to the user (¶ 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”).
Conclusion
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
March 16th 2026.