DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025 have been fully considered.
In response to the Applicant’s argument under “35 USC 112(b)”, the previous rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment. However, at the same time, the amendment includes limitations that fail to meet the requirements of 35 USC 112(b). Therefore, a new rejection has been applied.
In response to the Applicant’s argument under “35 USC 102(a)(1)”, a new ground of rejection under 35 USC 103 has been applied that relies on a combination of references by de Hoog (Pub. No.: US 2020/0364819 A1) in view of Smith (Pub. No.: US 2006/0015254 A1) for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
de Hoog teaches a plurality of sensing devices 160 that include smart phones (analogous to “electronic devices”) for reporting environmental conditions of the venue (para [0023]) and for providing locations of the users (para [0028]). The PVE system is configured to collect users’ locations upon receiving the users’ consent to perform the collections via the user interface of their smart phones (para [0019]).
de Hoog fails to teach the newly introduced claim limitation “the method further comprising prompting, by the plurality of electronic devices, the plurality of persons to provide inputs relating to parameters of the emergency event and/or the locations of the plurality of persons.” in claim 1 and in similar claim 9.
However, in the same field venue emergency event reporting, Smith teaches an event reporting system configured to prompt users carrying mobile devices to report hazardous or life-threatening events, and to provide the location of the user. See Fig. 14, para [0099], “In other embodiments, alternative methods of computing location may be used. For example, the system may be adapted for use in a particular location, such as a large stadium, arena, race track, or other venue in which prompt reporting of hazardous and life-threatening events can potentially save lives. In such a scenario, the system may be adapted for the user to input a section, row, and/or seat number where an affected individual is located. That is, if a patron seated in section 212, row AA, seat 10 is having chest pains, that patron (or others around him or her) can signal an usher or employee equipped with a mobile device 905 adapted for use in the particular venue.” and para [0109], “If secondary information is associated with the selected event type, the mobile device prompts the user, and the secondary information is entered in step 1411.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify de Hoog’s PVE system to include prompting users to provide information about the emergency event and/or locations as taught by Smith to provide a quicker response.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained based on the teachings and suggestions from the cited prior arts and the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 1, recites the limitation "the one or more electronic devices" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2-8, are also rejected because they depend on claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, recites the limitation "their current location” in line 3. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear which limitation is the word “their” is referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-12, 15 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Hoog (Pub. No.: US 2020/0364819 A1) in view of Smith (Pub. No.: US 2006/0015254 A1).
Regarding claim 1, de Hoog teaches a method for management of an emergency event in a premises (Abstract, Fig. 1 – Fig. 3, personalized venue evacuation (PVE) system and method), the method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device (Fig. 3, PVE system 325), from one or more sensors (Fig. 1, sensors 160 and cameras 185), signals indicative of an emergency event, wherein a plurality of sensors is disposed at different locations in the premises, the plurality of sensors configured to generate signals indicative of emergency event (Fig. 2, step 230, Fig. 3, venue condition data 315, and para [0026], “For example, in some in some embodiments, during an emergency evacuation of venue 100, a dangerous condition 145, such as a fire, may be present near stairwell 140. Dangerous condition 145 may be detected by sensing devices 160 (e.g., smoke detectors and temperature sensors).”);
receiving, by the computing device, from the one or more sensors, a location of the emergency event within the premises (para [0030], “In step 230, the PVE system may obtain venue condition data. The venue condition data may include information captured by recording devices and sensing devices at the venue, such as a current occupancy of a venue area, a size and flow rate of a moving crowd, or a location of a spreading fire.”);
receiving, by the computing device, from one or more electronic devices (Fig. 1, personal mobile devices 125), inputs relating to parameters of the emergency event, wherein a plurality of electronic devices is associated with a corresponding plurality of persons, and wherein the plurality of persons is located within the premises (Fig. 1, shows a plurality of users holding mobile device 125 are located within the venue 100);
receiving, by the computing device, from the one or more electronic devices, a corresponding location of the associated one or more persons (Fig. 2, step 210, Fig. 3, personal data 305, and para [0028], “FIG. 2 illustrates an example method 200 for providing a personalized venue evacuation plan. In step 210, a PVE system may obtain personal data about visitors to a venue. The PVE system is configured to collect such personal data after informing visitors of the collection and receiving visitor consent to perform the collection. The personal data may include information such as appearance, mobility (e.g. a person's form of movement and/or pace of movement), and location.”. The PVE system receives personal data (e.g., location) from the mobile devices.); and
determining, by the computing device, for each person, an evacuation route from a corresponding current location of each person to a designated evacuation location,
wherein the evacuation route for each person is further based on a location of the emergency event within the premises, and parameters of the emergency event, such that potential danger to each person along the corresponding evacuation route is minimized (Fig. 2 steps 240-270, para [0019], “By obtaining venue condition data and personal data, the PVE system may accurately determine a safe time and route for a user to evacuate according to the user's abilities, location, and circumstances.” and paras [0031] – [0038]. The PVE system determines a route for each user based on the location of the venue condition (e. g., location of a spreading fire), location of the user and the abilities of the user.).
de Hoog fails to teach the method further comprising prompting, by the plurality of electronic devices, the plurality of persons to provide inputs relating to parameters of the emergency event and/or the locations of the plurality of persons.
However, in the same field venue emergency event reporting, Smith teaches an event reporting system configured to prompt users carrying mobile devices to report hazardous or life-threatening events, and to provide location of the user. See Fig. 14, para [0099], “In other embodiments, alternative methods of computing location may be used. For example, the system may be adapted for use in a particular location, such as a large stadium, arena, race track, or other venue in which prompt reporting of hazardous and life-threatening events can potentially save lives. In such a scenario, the system may be adapted for the user to input a section, row, and/or seat number where an affected individual is located.
That is, if a patron seated in section 212, row AA, seat 10 is having chest pains, that patron (or others around him or her) can signal an usher or employee equipped with a mobile device 905 adapted for use in the particular venue.” and para [0109], “If secondary information is associated with the selected event type, the mobile device prompts the user, and the secondary information is entered in step 1411.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify de Hoog’s PVE system to include prompting users to provide information about the emergency event and/or locations as taught by Smith to provide a quicker response.
Regarding claim 2, de Hoog in the combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, by a learning engine, for each person, the evacuation route from the corresponding current location of each person to the designated evacuation location, wherein the computing device comprises the learning engine (para [0025], “For example, in some embodiments, during a non-evacuation period, video cameras and motion sensors may capture images and motion data of visitors, and computing devices may analyze the images and motion data to detect and characterize special mobility attributes. For example, computing devices may apply artificial intelligence and machine learning processes to determine that a visitor is pushing a stroller and to predict both an average pace of motion and a maximum pace of motion for such a visitor during an evacuation period. … Those predictions may be used by the PVE system to generate personalized venue evacuation plans that may be used for evacuation during non-evacuation periods, non-emergency evacuation periods, or emergency evacuation periods.”. The PVE system includes AI learning to determine the best route for the user during emergency.).
Regarding claim 3, de Hoog in the combination teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the learning engine is trained from a dataset comprising a plurality of evacuation routes from different locations within the premises to different designated evacuation locations for the premises (para [0026], “In some embodiments, computing devices 195 may send an instruction to the personal display 125 of a visitor with a special mobility attribute (e.g., the visitor walks with a cane) in fourth area 120. The instruction may indicate that the visitor may evacuate the venue more quickly by waiting five minutes and then moving to escalator 155, as opposed to attempting to immediately evacuate using stairway 170. The personalized venue evacuation plans provided by computing devices 195 may be generated and updated based on data acquired by sensing devices 160 and recording devices 185.” and para [0044], “The route generation submodule 330 may generate PVE plans by analyzing obtained data, predicting evacuation conditions and metrics, and ranking evacuation routes based on metrics such as safety and efficiency.”. The PVE system uses AI to learn each user’s abilities to generate a plurality of routes to safety.).
Regarding claim 6, de Hoog in the combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by the computing device, the determined evacuation route for each person, to the corresponding electronic device associated with each person (Fig. 2, para [0017], “To address these and other problems, embodiments of the present disclosure include a system and method for generating a personalized venue evacuation (“PVE”) plan that may include a set of current evacuation instructions that are tailored to a user's needs.” and para [0026], “In some embodiments, computing devices 195 may send a map and an instruction to each personal display 125 in third area 115. Such map and instruction may indicate that visitors in the third area 115 should wait until a clock displayed in the instruction counts down to zero and then move as quickly as possible to second area 110. In some embodiments, computing devices 195 may send an instruction to the personal display 125 of a visitor with a special mobility attribute (e.g., the visitor walks with a cane) in fourth area 120. The instruction may indicate that the visitor may evacuate the venue more quickly by waiting five minutes and then moving to escalator 155, as opposed to attempting to immediately evacuate using stairway 170.”. The PVE plan is tailored to each user within the venue.).
Regarding claim 9, recites a system configured to perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, de Hoog in the combination teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the emergency event comprises one or more of a fire event, a shooting event, a chemical spill event, and a natural disaster event (para [0026], “ For example, in some in some embodiments, during an emergency evacuation of venue 100, a dangerous condition 145, such as a fire, may be present near stairwell 140.”).
Regarding claim 11, recites a system configured to perform the method of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, recites a system configured to perform the method of claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, recites a system configured to perform the method of claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, de Hoog in the combination teaches the system of claim 9, wherein each electronic device comprises an interface configured to enable exchange of data between the corresponding electronic device and the computing device (para [0023], “Computing devices 195 may also communicate with a set of personal displays 125 (e.g. tablets, mobile phones, and smart watches) that are worn or carried by visitors 135 or visitors having a special mobility attribute 130. Computing devices 195 may be located at venue 100 or at a remote location.”. Each personal smart phone includes a communication interface to exchange data with the PVE computer 195 and other smart phones 125.).
Regarding claim 19, de Hoog in the combination teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the computing device is a cloud-based computing device (para [0056], “It is understood in advance that although this disclosure includes a detailed description on cloud computing, implementation of the teachings recited herein are not limited to a cloud computing environment.”).
Regarding claim 20, de Hoog in the combination teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the computing device is communicably coupled to the plurality of sensors and the plurality of electronic devices via a wireless communication network (Fig. 1 – Fig. 3, para [0083], “The network may comprise copper transmission cables, optical transmission fibers, wireless transmission, routers, firewalls, switches, gateway computers, and/or edge servers.”).
Regarding claim 21, Smith in the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the prompting by the plurality of electronic devices comprises displaying, on an interface of each electronic device, a real-time prompt requesting the associated person to confirm or update their current location and perceived parameters of the emergency event (para [0022], “In some embodiments, based on the event initially reported, the device may be used to report subsequent related information, or secondary information, regarding the event dependent on the type of event initially selected by the user of the mobile data processing device.” and para [0109], “If secondary information is associated with the selected event type, the mobile device prompts the user, and the secondary information is entered in step 1411.”.).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Hoog (Pub. No.: US 2020/0364819 A1) in view of Smith (Pub. No.: US 2006/0015254 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Murphy (Pub. No.: US 2023/0132523 A1).
Regarding claim 4, de Hoog in view of Smith teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising deploying, by the computing device, countermeasures within the premises to mitigate an intensity of the emergency event.
However, in the same field of evacuation, Murphy teaches a building / venue includes suppression system 150 to suppress the detected threat. See Fig. 1 and para [0048], “Area 110 may further include suppression systems 150, such as fire suppression systems, fire doors, etc. In embodiments, emergency response computer program 165 may control suppression systems 150 to respond to a fire or other threat.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify de Hoog’s PVE system to activate the venue’s suppression system to suppress the threat.
Regarding claim 13, recites a system configured to perform the method of claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Hoog (Pub. No.: US 2020/0364819 A1) in view of Smith (Pub. No.: US 2006/0015254 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Jordan (Pub. No.: US 2021/0158671 A1).
Regarding claim 5, de Hoog in view of Smith teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising:
determining, by the computing device, locations within the premises where the emergency event is occurring that is also free of any persons; and
isolating, by the computing device, the determined locations to limit spread of the emergency event.
However, in the same field of evacuation, Jordan teaches an evacuation system configured to close the door to isolate the fire if no one is located within the premises. See para [0042], “On the other hand, if the smart home controller 220 detects that the individual 240 is not present on the premises of the property 205, the smart home controller 220 may determine that the set of actions includes closing a smart door (or smart window) to facilitate the containment and/or suppression of the fire.” and para [0063], “Directing or controlling the smart door may include (1) receiving, by the hardware controller via a first communication network, a second set of sensor data from at least one of the plurality of devices, the second set of sensor data indicative of the presence of the set of individuals on the property; (2) analyzing, by one or more processors, the second set of sensor data to determine the number of individuals within the set of individuals present on the property; (3) when the set of individuals present on the property includes no individuals, directing or controlling, by the one or more processors, the smart door to close to facilitate fire suppression; and/or (4) when the set of individuals present on the property includes at least one individual, directing or controlling, by the one or more processors, the smart door to open to facilitate evacuation by the set of individuals.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify de Hoog’s PVE system to close the door if no one is located within the premises to improve safety.
Regarding claim 14, recites a system configured to perform the method of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Hoog (Pub. No.: US 2020/0364819 A1) in view of Smith (Pub. No.: US 2006/0015254 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 9, and further in view of Lee (Pub. No.: US 2014/0159910 A1).
Regarding claim 7, de Hoog in the combination teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating, by the computing device, instructions to persons to evacuate; and
transmitting, by the computing device, the alert to the corresponding electronic device associated with each person (para [0026], “In some embodiments, computing devices 195 may send a map and an instruction to each personal display 125 in third area 115. Such map and instruction may indicate that visitors in the third area 115 should wait until a clock displayed in the instruction counts down to zero and then move as quickly as possible to second area 110. In some embodiments, computing devices 195 may send an instruction to the personal display 125 of a visitor with a special mobility attribute (e.g., the visitor walks with a cane) in fourth area 120. The instruction may indicate that the visitor may evacuate the venue more quickly by waiting five minutes and then moving to escalator 155, as opposed to attempting to immediately evacuate using stairway 170.”).
de Hoog teaches the PVE system transmits a map with instructions to evacuate but fails to expressly teaches generating, by the computing device, an alert to indicate a type of emergency event, a location of the emergency event.
However, in the same field of evacuation, Lee teaches a device configured to display the type of the event (e.g., fire 310), the location of the fire and the route to escape 320. See Fig. 5 – Fig. 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify de Hoog’s personal mobile device to further display the type and the location of the event to improve safety.
Regarding claim 16, recites a system configured to perform the method of claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, EST.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685