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 June 11, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 3,4,5,6 and 12 are not legible, need better resolution / clarity. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities as described below,
Appropriate correction is required.
Alert 601 as described in paragraph [0076] line 5 “In this example, devices located within Zone 1 1102 can be sent an alert 601 with sound/haptic output” contradicts how alert 601 is described in FIG 6 as having No sound and No vibration.
In paragraph [0043] line 2, Electronic devices 102 and 104 are described as external electronic devices and FIGURE 1 illustrates Electronic device 101 as the electronic device which is a part of network configuration to detect emergency incidents and provide differential alerts. However, in paragraph [0046] line 3, there is a mention of “electronic device 101 is mounted in the electronic device 102” without a clear explanation on how an electronic device employed to detect emergency incidents and provide differential alerts can also be mounted in an external device at the same time.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daly (US 8,688,071).
Regarding claim 1, Daly discloses:
receiving signals from a plurality of electronic devices, receives information from multiple devices or wireless transmit / receive units (WTRU) [see Fig. 1 (110, 111) and col. 2, lines 37-44 & col. 18, line 20]; each of the signals corresponding to a sensed input at a corresponding one of the plurality of electronic devices that indicates an emergency incident, “Each WTRU may reside within one or more geographic regions. Here, WTRU 112 may be considered to reside in Region 132. While WTRU 110 may be considered to reside in Region 134 and WTRU 111 may reside in Region 136. Region 132 is bound by outer line 142 and inner line 144. Region 134 is bound by outer line 144 and inner line 146. Region 136 is bound by outer line 146. Region 132, 134, and 136 may be part of a related emergency situation (e.g., adverse weather), but may have a different alert message for each region” [see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 (305, 310, 315)] and [col. 2, lines 50-59]; assigning a plurality of differential zones relative to the emergency incident, defines and assigns geographic regions that may be of any shape which may also be nested that are various distances from the emergency incident [see Fig. 2 (205, 210, 215)] and [col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 13]; determining an area in which the device is located and assigning it as first or second alert areas, “the device information comprising location information of the device; determining an area in which the device is located based on the device information, the area comprising one of the first emergency alert area or the second emergency alert area” as claimed [see col. 18, line 33]; providing a first type of alert regarding the emergency incident to a first electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices located within a first zone of the plurality of different zones, “generating a first alert message for the first emergency alert area” as claimed and also providing an appropriate alert message to the devices based on their location. [see col. 18, line 47 & col. 1, lines 45-58]; providing a second type of alert regarding the emergency incident to a second electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices located within a second zone, “generating a second alert message for the second emergency alert area” as claimed and also providing an appropriate alert message to the devices based on their location [see col. 18, line 49 & col. 1, lines 45-58); wherein locations within the second zone are more distant from the emergency incident than locations within the first zone; “A default shape such as circular shape may be used to simplify the process in determining the emergency alert message area boundaries. In an embodiment, a center point may be selected and then a distance from the center point may be chosen in order to define the emergency alert message area boundaries [see col. 3, line 61 – col. 4, line 9 and col. 3, lines 2-13]; and wherein the first type of alert differs from the second type of alert, various regions receive different type of alerts based on their location and proximity to the emergency incident [see Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 13-27].
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Daly discloses:
The plurality of different zones comprises the first zone, the second zone, and a third zone, “an exemplary embodiment that comprises three nested geographic regions” with respect to the emergency incident [see Fig 2., col. 2, lines 66, 67]; locations within the third zone are more distant from the emergency incident than locations within the second zone, emergency alert area boundaries are defined based their distance from the center point or the emergency incident [see col. 4, lines 7-9]; the method further comprises providing a third type of alert regarding the emergency incident to a third electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices located within the third zone, the third area is described as “STAY AWAY” area receives an alert message that is appropriate based on the severity of emergency in that area [see Fig. 2., Fig. 4., col. 5, lines 12-19]; the first type of alert includes no sound, no vibration, and first emergency response information and the second and third types of alerts include both sound and vibration and emergency response information different from the first emergency response information, different types of emergency alerts are sent to different areas based on the “levels of emergency severity”, some messages can be text only or visual only [see Fig. 3., Fig. 4., col. 3, lines 24-27 & lines 61-65].
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4, Daly discloses:
The sensed input indicates movement of the respective electronic device and, when the respective electronic device is a wearable device, biometric data for a user wearing the respective electronic device, the sensed information from a device “comprises at least one of: direction of movement of the device, and speed of movement of the device” and additional information such as GPS coordinates is used to send an appropriate alert message advising the user to take necessary action as claimed [see col. 18, lines 53-56, col. 3, lines 21-27 & col. 4, lines 10-26].
Regarding claim 8, Daly discloses:
An electronic device comprising: at least one processing device configured to: receive signals from a plurality of electronic devices, “A device comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor” is used to receive information from multiple devices or wireless transmit / receive units (WTRU) [see Fig. 1 (110, 111), Fig. 5., col. 2, lines 37-44, col. 6, lines 7-24, and col. 18, line 66 – col. 19, line 1]; each of the signals corresponding to a sensed input at a corresponding one of the plurality of electronic devices that indicates an emergency incident, “Each WTRU may reside within one or more geographic regions. Here, WTRU 112 may be considered to reside in Region 132. While WTRU 110 may be considered to reside in Region 134 and WTRU 111 may reside in Region 136. Region 132 is bound by outer line 142 and inner line 144. Region 134 is bound by outer line 144 and inner line 146. Region 136 is bound by outer line 146. Region 132, 134, and 136 may be part of a related emergency situation (e.g., adverse weather), but may have a different alert message for each region” [see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 (305, 310, 315)] and [col. 2, lines 50-59]; and assign a plurality of different zones relative to the emergency incident, defines geographic regions that may be of any shape which may also be nested that are various distances from the emergency incident and an alert server / computer determining an area in which the device is located and assigning it as first or second alert areas [see Fig. 2 (205, 210, 215), Fig. 6.] and [col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 13, col. 19, lines 5-11]; and a transceiver configured to: provide a first type of alert regarding the emergency incident to a first electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices located within a first zone of the plurality of different zones; A device “generating a first alert message for the first emergency alert area” as claimed and also providing an appropriate alert message to the devices based on their location. [see col. 19, lines 29-31 & col. 1, lines 45-58]; and provide a second type of alert regarding the emergency incident to a second electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices located within a second zone of the plurality of different zones, A device “generating a second alert message for the second emergency alert area” as claimed and also providing an appropriate alert message to the devices based on their location [see col. 19, lines 32-33 & col. 1, lines 45-58); wherein locations within the second zone are more distant from the emergency incident than locations within the first zone, “A default shape such as circular shape may be used to simplify the process in determining the emergency alert message area boundaries. In an embodiment, a center point may be selected and then a distance from the center point may be chosen in order to define the emergency alert message area boundaries [see col. 3, line 61 – col. 4, line 9 and col. 3, lines 2-13]; and wherein the first type of alert differs from the second type of alert, various regions receive different type of alerts based on their location and proximity to the emergency incident [see Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 13-22].
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 8, Daly discloses:
The electronic device of Claim 8, wherein: The plurality of different zones comprises the first zone, the second zone, and a third zone, “an exemplary embodiment that comprises three nested geographic regions” by an alert server / electronic device, with respect to the emergency incident [see Fig 2., col. 2, lines 66, 67]; locations within the third zone are more distant from the emergency incident than locations within the second zone, emergency alert area boundaries are defined based their distance from the center point or the emergency incident [see col. 4, lines 7-9]; the transceiver is further configured to provide a third type of alert regarding the emergency incident to a third electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices located within the third zone, an alert server delineates the overall emergency alert message area [see col. 3, lines 61-65], the third area is described as “STAY AWAY” area receives an alert message that is appropriate based on the severity of emergency in that area [see Fig. 2., Fig. 4., col. 5, lines 12-19]; the first type of alert includes no sound, no vibration, and first emergency response information; and the second and third types of alerts include both sound and vibration and emergency response information different from the first emergency response information, different types of emergency alerts are sent to different areas based on the “levels of emergency severity” [see Fig. 3., Fig. 4., col. 3, lines 61-65].
Regarding claim 12 and as applied to claim 11, Daly discloses:
The electronic device of Claim 11, wherein the sensed input indicates movement of the respective electronic device and, when the respective electronic device is a wearable device, biometric data for a user wearing the respective electronic device, a device comprising of a processor receiving information from a device regarding the direction and speed of movement of a mobile device and instructing the user with appropriate alert message [col. 19, line 36, col. 3, lines 21-27 and col. 4, lines 10-26]
Regarding claim 15, Daly discloses:
A non-transitory machine readable medium containing instructions that when executed cause at least one processor of an electronic device, a system comprising of a memory with stored executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to effectuate operations [col. 15, lines 9-14]; receive signals from a plurality of electronic devices, “A device comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor” is used to receive information from multiple devices or wireless transmit / receive units (WTRU) [see Fig. 1 (110, 111), Fig. 5., col. 2, lines 37-44, col. 6, lines 7-24, and col. 18, line 66 – col. 19, line 1]; each of the signals corresponding to a sensed input at a corresponding one of the plurality of electronic devices that indicates an emergency incident, “Each WTRU may reside within one or more geographic regions. Here, WTRU 112 may be considered to reside in Region 132. While WTRU 110 may be considered to reside in Region 134 and WTRU 111 may reside in Region 136. Region 132 is bound by outer line 142 and inner line 144. Region 134 is bound by outer line 144 and inner line 146. Region 136 is bound by outer line 146. Region 132, 134, and 136 may be part of a related emergency situation (e.g., adverse weather), but may have a different alert message for each region” [see Fig. 1, Fig. 3 (305, 310, 315), Fig. 5, & Fig. 6.] and [col. 18, line 20, col. 20, line 7, col. 7, lines 25-41, col. 2, lines 50-59 and col. 6, lines 7-24]; assign a plurality of different zones relative to the emergency incident, defines geographic regions that may be of any shape which may also be nested that are various distances from the emergency incident and an alert server / computer determining an area in which the device is located and assigning it as first or second alert areas [see Fig. 2 (205, 210, 215), Fig. 6.] and [col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 13, col. 7, lines 25-41, col. 3, lines 61-65, col. 19, lines 5-11 and col. 20, line 26]; provide a first type of alert regarding the emergency incident to a first electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices located within a first zone of the plurality of different zones, A device “generating a first alert message for the first emergency alert area” as claimed and also providing an appropriate alert message to the devices based on their location. [see Fig. 6., col. 19, lines 29-31, col. 7, lines 25-41, col. 1, lines 45-58, col. 20, lines 26-36]; and provide a second type of alert regarding the emergency incident to a second electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices located within a second zone of the plurality of different zones; A device “generating a second alert message for the second emergency alert area” as claimed and also providing an appropriate alert message to the devices based on their location [see Fig. 6, col. 19, lines 32-33, col. 7, lines 25-41, col. 20, line 26-36 & col. 1, lines 45-58); wherein locations within the second zone are more distant from the emergency incident than locations within the first zone, “A default shape such as circular shape may be used to simplify the process in determining the emergency alert message area boundaries. In an embodiment, a center point may be selected and then a distance from the center point may be chosen in order to define the emergency alert message area boundaries [see col. 3, line 61 – col. 4, line 9 and col. 3, lines 2-13]; and wherein the first type of alert differs from the second type of alert, various regions receive different type of alerts based on their location and proximity to the emergency incident [see Fig. 2, col. 3, lines 13-22].
Regarding claim 17 and as applied to claim 15, Daly teaches:
The non-transitory machine readable medium of Claim 15, wherein: The plurality of different zones comprises the first zone, the second zone, and a third zone, “an exemplary embodiment that comprises three nested geographic regions” by a system comprising of a processor, a memory stored with executable instructions that effectuates operations, with respect to the emergency incident [see Fig 2., col. 2, lines 66, 67]; locations within the third zone are more distant from the emergency incident than locations within the second zone, emergency alert area boundaries are defined based their distance from the center point or the emergency incident [see col. 4, lines 7-9]; the non-transitory machine readable medium further contains instructions that when executed cause the at least one processor to provide a third type of alert regarding the emergency incident to a third electronic device of the plurality of electronic devices located within the third zone, an alert server delineates the overall emergency alert message area [see col. 3, lines 61-65], the third area is described as “STAY AWAY” area receives an alert message that is appropriate based on the severity of emergency in that area [see Fig. 2., Fig. 4., col. 5, lines 12-19], also a system comprising a processor, a memory stored with executable instructions that effectuates operations comprising of receiving multiple signals and delineating of different areas in the emergency area [col. 20, lines 9-35 and col. 7, lines 25-41]; the first type of alert includes no sound, no vibration, and first emergency response information; and the second and third types of alerts include both sound and vibration and emergency response information different from the first emergency response information, different types of emergency alerts are sent to different areas based on the “levels of emergency severity” [see Fig. 3., Fig. 4., col. 3, lines 61-65].
Regarding claim 19 and as applied to claims 18, Daly teaches:
The non-transitory machine readable medium of Claim 18, wherein the sensed input indicates movement of the respective electronic device and, when the respective electronic device is a watch or ear buds, biometric data for a user wearing the respective electronic device, a device comprising of a processor, a memory stored with executable instructions that effectuates operations receiving information from a device regarding the direction and speed of movement of a mobile device and instructing the user with appropriate alert message [col. 19, line 36, col. 3, lines 21-27 and col. 4, lines 10-26, col. 7, lines 25-41 & col. 20, lines 10-25].
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly (US 8,688,071) above further in view of Kucharski (US 12107994)
Regarding claim 2 and as applied to claim 1, Daly discloses the claimed invention and further teaches, wherein: the first type of alert does not include a prompt for user input and includes no sound and no vibration, generating first and second types of emergency alerts in response to an emergency [col. 18, lines 47-50] with some messages (first type of alert) may be text or visual only and does not include a prompt for response [col. 3, line 24], but fails to explicitly teach wherein: the second type of alert solicits user confirmation of the emergency incident and includes both sound and vibration.
In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches, wherein: the second type of alert solicits user confirmation of the emergency incident and includes both sound and vibration, the user is solicited (prompted) to confirm (report) the incident with a visual and/or audio prompt considering the unique circumstances such as safety, user convenience, user health, mental status, type of severity of the situation [Fig. 5, col. 4, line 49-64, col. 5, lines 27-44].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the solicitation of the user confirmation of the emergency incident including both sound and vibration with the prompting of a user with visual and/or audio of Kucharski into the invention of Daly in order to receive a confirmation.
Regarding claim 6 and as applied to claim 1, Daly discloses the claimed invention and teaches, wherein: after receiving the signals from the plurality of electronic devices and before providing the first type of alert and the second type of alert, generating first and second types of emergency alerts in response to an emergency [col. 18, lines 47-50], but fails to explicitly teach wherein: determining a likelihood of existence of the emergency incident; or requesting manual confirmation of the emergency incident by a user of either the second electronic device or any other electronic device located within the second zone of the plurality of different zones.
In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches wherein: and before providing the first type of alert and the second type of alert, at least one of: determining a likelihood of existence of the emergency incident; or requesting manual confirmation of the emergency incident by a user of either the second electronic device or any other electronic device located within the second zone of the plurality of different zones, the user is requested (prompted) for a manual confirmation (report), in the process of determining the likelihood, the emergency incident with a visual and/or audio prompt considering the unique circumstances such as safety, user convenience, user health, mental status, type of severity of the situation [Fig. 1 (110, 120), Fig. 4 (440, 450), col. 4, line 49-64, col. 5, lines 20-44].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the manual confirmation request of an emergency situation of Kucharski into the invention of Daly in order to confirm the likelihood of existence of an emergency.
Regarding claim 7 and as applied to claim 6, Daly discloses the claimed invention and teaches wherein: the likelihood of existence of the emergency incident, generating first and second types of emergency alerts in response to an emergency [col. 18, lines 47-50] by an electronic device, but fails to explicitly teach wherein: at least one of: audio at one or more of the plurality of electronic devices indicating screaming; crime rate statistics for an area of the emergency incident; at least one emergency call from the area of the incident; or social media information.
In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches wherein: the likelihood of existence of the emergency incident is determined based on at least one of: audio at one or more of the plurality of electronic devices indicating screaming; crime rate statistics for an area of the emergency incident; at least one emergency call from the area of the incident, the user is prompted to confirm the emergency incident with a visual and/or audio signal taking into consideration unique circumstances such as safety, user convenience, user health, mental status, type of severity of the situation. Uses audio sensor devices capable of detecting broken glass (screaming) to capture data and analyze using and audio analytics engine to identify the nature of the audio and detect the likelihood of existence of an emergency [col. 2, lines 20-28, col. 4, line 49 through col. 5, line 27, col. 16, lines 60-65], and uses information from incident databases operated by public-safety agencies about reported emergency incidents (emergency calls) to determine the likelihood of an emergency incident [col. 4, lines 49-54, col. 12, lines 20-39].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the usage of audio sensor information (screaming etc.) and requesting manual confirmation and information from incident databases on reported emergency incidents (emergency calls) from safety databases of Kucharski into the invention of Daly in order to confirm likelihood of existence of the emergency.
Regarding claim 9 and as applied to claim 8, Daly discloses the claimed invention and teaches, wherein: The electronic device of Claim 8, wherein: the first type of alert does not include a prompt for user input and includes no sound and no vibration, an alert server / electronic device generating first and second types of emergency alerts in response to an emergency [col. 18, lines 47-50] with some messages (first type of alert) may be text or visual only and does not include a prompt for response [col. 3, line 24], but fails to explicitly teach wherein: the second type of alert solicits user confirmation of the emergency incident and includes both sound and vibration.
In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches, wherein: the second type of alert solicits user confirmation of the emergency incident and includes both sound and vibration, the user is solicited (prompted) to confirm (report) the incident with a visual and/or audio prompt considering the unique circumstances such as safety, user convenience, user health, mental status, type of severity of the situation [Fig. 5, col. 4, line 49-64, col. 5, lines 27-44].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the solicitation of the user confirmation of the emergency incident including both sound and vibration with the prompting of a user with visual and/or audio of Kucharski into the invention of Daly in order to receive a confirmation.
Regarding claim 13 and as applied to claim 8, Daly discloses the claimed invention and teaches, wherein: The electronic device of Claim 8, wherein the at least one processing device is further configured, after receiving the signals from the plurality of electronic devices and before providing the first type of alert and the second type of alert, generating first and second types of emergency alerts in response to an emergency [col. 18, lines 47-50] by an electronic device with a processor [col. 19, lines 1-10]. However, Daly fails to explicitly teach wherein: determining a likelihood of existence of the emergency incident; or requesting manual confirmation of the emergency incident by a user of either the second electronic device or any other electronic device located within the second zone of the plurality of different zones.
In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches wherein: before providing the first type of alert and the second type of alert, at least one of: determining a likelihood of existence of the emergency incident; or requesting manual confirmation of the emergency incident by a user of either the second electronic device or any other electronic device located within the second zone of the plurality of different zones, the user is requested (prompted), in the process of determining the likelihood, through an alert for a manual confirmation (report) the emergency incident with a visual and/or audio prompt considering the unique circumstances such as safety, user convenience, user health, mental status, type of severity of the situation [Fig. 1 (110, 120), Fig. 4 (440, 450), col. 4, line 49-64, col. 5, lines 20-44].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the manual confirmation request of an emergency situation of Kucharski into the invention of Daly in order to confirm the likelihood of existence of an emergency.
Regarding claim 14 and as applied to claim 13, Daly discloses the invention of claim 14 and teaches wherein: the at least one processing device is configured to determine the likelihood of existence of the emergency incident, generating first and second types of emergency alerts in response to an emergency [col. 18, lines 47-50] by an electronic device, but fails to explicitly teach wherein: at least one of: audio at one or more of the plurality of electronic devices indicating screaming; crime rate statistics for an area of the emergency incident; at least one emergency call from the area of the incident; or social media information.
In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches wherein: the likelihood of existence of the emergency incident based on at least one of: audio at one or more of the plurality of electronic devices indicating screaming; crime rate statistics for an area of the emergency incident; at least one emergency call from the area of the incident; or social media information, the user is prompted to confirm the emergency incident with a visual and/or audio signal taking into consideration unique circumstances such as safety, user convenience, user health, mental status, type of severity of the situation. Uses audio sensor devices capable of detecting broken glass (screaming) to capture data and analyze using and audio analytics engine to identify the nature of the audio and detect that there is an emergency [col. 2, lines 20-28, col. 4, line 49 through col. 5, line 27, col. 16, lines 60-65] and uses information from incident databases operated by public-safety agencies about reported incidents (emergency calls) to determine the likelihood of an emergency incident [col. 4, lines 49-54, col. 12, lines 20-39].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the usage of audio sensor information (screaming etc.) and requesting manual confirmation and information on reported emergency incidents (emergency calls) from safety-databases of Kucharski into the invention of Daly in order to confirm likelihood of existence of the emergency.
Regarding claim 16 and as applied to claim 15, Daly discloses the claimed invention and teaches, wherein: The non-transitory machine readable medium of Claim 15, wherein: the first type of alert does not include a prompt for user input and includes no sound and no vibration, generating first and second types of emergency alerts in response to an emergency [col. 18, lines 47-50] with some messages (first type of alert) may be text or visual only and does not include a prompt for response [col. 3, line 24-27] by a system comprising of a processor, a memory stored with executable instructions that effectuates operations comprising of receiving multiple signals and delineating of different areas in the emergency area [col. 19, lines 1-10], but fails to explicitly teach wherein: the second type of alert solicits user confirmation of the emergency incident and includes both sound and vibration.
In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches, wherein: the second type of alert solicits user confirmation of the emergency incident and includes both sound and vibration, the user is solicited (prompted) to confirm (report) the incident with a visual and/or audio prompt by a by a system comprising of a processor, a memory stored with executable instructions that effectuates operations, considering the unique circumstances such as safety, user convenience, user health, mental status, type of severity of the situation [Fig. 5, col. 4, line 49-64, col. 5, lines 27-44].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the solicitation of the user confirmation of the emergency incident including both sound and vibration with the prompting of a user with visual and/or audio of Kucharski into the invention of Daly in order to receive a confirmation.
Regarding claim 20 and as applied to claim 15, Daly discloses the claimed invention and teaches, wherein: The non-transitory machine readable medium of Claim 15, further containing instructions that when executed cause the at least one processor, after receiving the signals from the plurality of electronic devices and before providing the first type of alert and the second type of alert, generating first and second types of emergency alerts in response to an emergency [col. 18, lines 47-50, col. 3, lines 24-27] by a system comprising of a processor, a memory stored with executable instructions that effectuates operations [col. 19, lines 1-10]. However, Daly fails to explicitly teach wherein: determine a likelihood of existence of the emergency incident; or request manual confirmation of the emergency incident by a user of either the second electronic device or any other electronic device located within the second zone of the plurality of different zones.
In the same field of endeavor, Kucharski teaches wherein: before providing the first type of alert and the second type of alert, to at least one of: determine a likelihood of existence of the emergency incident; or request manual confirmation of the emergency incident by a user of either the second electronic device or any other electronic device located within the second zone of the plurality of different zones, the user is requested (prompted), in the process of determining the likelihood, through an alert for a manual confirmation (report) the emergency incident with a visual and/or audio prompt considering the unique circumstances such as safety, user convenience, user health, mental status, type of severity of the situation [Fig. 1 (110, 120), Fig. 4 (440, 450), col. 4, line 49-64, col. 5, lines 20-44].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the manual confirmation request of an emergency situation of Kucharski into the invention of Daly in order to confirm the existence of an emergency.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daly (US 8,688,071) in view of Mattern (US 9164165) (from IDS filed on June 11, 2024).
Regarding claim 4 and as applied to claim 1, Daly discloses the claimed invention and teaches, wherein: each of the received signals includes a first signal corresponding to detection of the gunshot and location information for the respective one of the plurality of electronic devices, receiving multiple emergency notifications (received signals / sensed inputs) by an alert server [col. 4, lines 10-26] and it determines the location (location information) [col. 3, lines 28-36] to send appropriate alert message, but fails to explicitly teach wherein: the sensed input includes audio indicating a gunshot; and each of the received signals includes a first signal corresponding to detection of the gunshot.
In the same field of endeavor, Mattern teaches, wherein: the sensed input includes audio indicating a gunshot; and each of the received signals includes a first signal corresponding to detection of the gunshot, one or more microphones in the monitored area can capture sound and when the audio is converted to an electrical signal by the microphone and transmitted to a gunfire detection system, it confirms a gunshot [col. 2, lines 39-57].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the gunshot detection system that analyzes audio captured by microphone of Mattern into the invention of Daly in order to detect an emergency signal and identify a gunshot.
Regarding claim 11 and as applied to claim 8, Daly discloses the claimed invention and teaches, wherein: The electronic device of Claim 8, wherein: each of the received signals includes a first signal corresponding to detection of the gunshot and location information for the respective one of the plurality of electronic devices, receiving multiple emergency notifications (received signals / sensed inputs) by an alert server / electronic device [col. 4, lines 10-26] and it determines the location (location information) [col. 3, lines 28-36] to send appropriate alert message, but fails to explicitly teach wherein: the sensed input includes audio indicating a gunshot; and each of the received signals includes a first signal corresponding to detection of the gunshot.
In the same field of endeavor, Mattern teaches, wherein: the sensed input includes audio indicating a gunshot; and each of the received signals includes a first signal corresponding to detection of the gunshot, one or more microphones in the monitored area can capture sound and when the audio is converted to an electrical signal by the microphone and transmitted to a gunfire detection system, it confirms a gunshot [col. 2, lines 39-57].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the gunshot detection system that analyzes audio captured by microphone of Mattern into the invention of Daly in order to detect an emergency situation arising from an identified gunshot sound.
Regarding claim 18 and as applied to claim 15, Daly discloses the claimed invention and teaches, wherein: The non-transitory machine readable medium of Claim 15, wherein: each of the received signals includes a first signal corresponding to detection of the gunshot and location information for the respective one of the plurality of electronic devices, receiving multiple emergency notifications (received signals / sensed inputs) by an alert server (a system comprising of a processor, a memory stored with executable instructions that effectuates operations [col. 4, lines 10-26] and it determines the location (location information) [col. 19, lines 1-10, col. 3, lines 24-36] to send appropriate alert message, but fails to explicitly teach wherein: the sensed input includes audio indicating a gunshot; and each of the received signals includes a first signal corresponding to detection of the gunshot.
In the same field of endeavor, Mattern teaches, wherein: the sensed input includes audio indicating a gunshot; and each of the received signals includes a first signal corresponding to detection of the gunshot, one or more microphones in the monitored area can capture sound and when the audio is converted to an electrical signal by the microphone and transmitted to a gunfire detection system, it confirms a gunshot [col. 2, lines 39-57].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have incorporated the features of the gunshot detection system that analyzes audio captured by microphone of Mattern into the invention of Daly in order to detect an emergency signal and identify a gunshot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record not relied upon and considered pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Pellegrini (US 20190380020): discloses methods and apparatus for detection of emergencies or even vandalism, usage of audio analytics engine to analyze the audio signal captured by sensors / microphones to determine the nature or character of the signal and the description of interaction with emergency providers.
Werner (US 10629053): teaches information from social media being used to identify an emergency situation and alert the necessary impacted groups. The subject matter in this disclosure uses determination of when a location group emergency exceeds a threshold value to take appropriate action and issue a relevant emergency warning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJAN A BEERA whose telephone number is (571)270-0454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at (571) 272-7904. 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.
/RAJAN A BEERA/
Examiner,
Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641
Prosecution Insights