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 5/27/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 4/28/2026 have been fully considered.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 21-23, 26-30, 33-37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by South et al. (WO 2017189451), hereinafter South in view of Trepanier et al. (US 12,347,199), hereinafter Trepanier.
Applicant argues South’s user device is not the claimed sensor.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. South’s user device is defined as “the user device 130 is a network-enabled computing device used by the individual 120 and may be a mobile telephone, a desktop computer, a laptop, netbook, a smart phone, a tablet computer (e.g., an iPad.sup.®, Galaxy.sup.® or Kindle.sup.®), an RFID capable device, a GPS device, a wearable device (such as an Apple watch, or other tethered accessory or clothing, etc.), or other computing device that is capable of sending and receiving data over a network.” (see page 10, lines 11-15) A smartphone, a tablet, a GPS device, a wearable device are sensor devices. These devices include a wide variety of sensors, for example a GPS device is a sensor to receive signals (i.e. beacons as disclosed by South) to calculate and track the precise geographical location of the device. Furthermore, the specification of the pending application discloses in paragraph [0015] the following “The client devices 110, 120, 130 can be smart devices, for example. As an example, the client devices 110, 120, 130 can be a Ring Camera, a Google Nest Cam, or a smartphone.”
Applicant further argues South’s user devices are personal mobile communication devices carried by individuals, not sensors registered at fixed physical locations. The claims recite “receiving a registration request indicating a sensor and a physical location of the sensor.” This claim language implies a fixed device registered at a known location. Examiner acknowledged Applicant’s perspective but respectfully disagreed for the following reasons:
First, South’s user device is located on a floor of a multi-floor structure. Each user device locates at a physical location on that floor. South discloses the following “The user device 130 may also include hardware and/or software configured to determine a geographical location of the user device. For example the user device may determine its present location using a GPS receiver, the WiFi radio, the cellular radio, the Bluetooth radio, and/or any other transceiver configured to determine the current physical location of the user device, or any combination thereof.” (see page 11, lines 16-20). The user device interacts with an interactive emergency visualization system and provides its geographical location.
Second, the claim only recites “receiving a registration request indicating a sensor and a physical location of the sensor,” nothing in the claim indicates that a device registered at a fixed physical location as alleged by the Applicant.
Applicant argues South does not teach “receiving a registration request indicating a sensor and a physical location of the sensor.” Applicant’s argument is on the premise that page 3, lines 14-21 of South indicates a system querying devices for their current location, not receiving a registration request that indicates a sensor and wherein it is physically located. The claim only recites “receiving a registration request indicating a sensor and a physical location of the sensor.” The claim does not specify which entity receives a registration request. Furthermore, South discloses in page 10, lines 18-31 and page 11, lines 1-15 the following “A user device 130 may be equipped with an app by downloading the app from the Internet, an Intranet, or other network. User devices 130 may be equipped with the app as part of an enrollment or orientation. For example, if the individuals 120 are students associated with a university, the students may download an app to their smart phone and/or tablet as part of enrollment or orientation. In other instances, the app may be pre-installed on the user device or may be integrated into the operating system of the user device. Such an app may communicate with the interactive emergency visualization system 200 using any of the communication transceivers in the user device. For example, the app may receive and transmit emergency information via a cellular data connection and/or a WiFi data connection. In this manner, if cellular towers are overly congested during an incident, the app on the user device may switch to another communication means, such as WiFi, to transmit and receive data. Alternatively, the app may transmit using multiple concurrent communication means, such as cellular and WiFi, although battery life of the device must be considered when doing so. As explained in more detail below, each instance of a mobile app installed on a user device (e.g., an ARCANGEL® security app as shown in reference to FIGS. 16-21) may be individually identifiable via an app instance identifier. Each individual 120 may be associated with a particular app instance by the interactive emergency visualization system 200. In some embodiments, before an app instance is permitted to update information about an individual's geographical location in the system 200, the app instance may or must first be verified or validated by the system 200.” The quoted paragraph explains a user of a user device downloads an app as part of an enrollment and the app communicates with the interactive emergency visualization system to receive and transmit emergency information via a network connection. And each individual is associated with a particular app instance which is permitted to update information about an individual’s geographical location in the system after the app is validated by the system.
Applicant argues South does not teach “a request for video data from the sensor is transmitted, at least in part based on the determination.” Applicant refers to South’s page 3, lines 14-21 and concludes this is user-initiated feedback from people, not a system-initiated request for video data directed to a sensor based on geofence determination. South’s page 3, lines 14-21 only discusses about a method determining a user device location in response to a notification concerning an incident. South’s page 8, lines 13-22 disclose “The individuals within a certain distance from the location of the incident and/or within the geo-fences may be informed about the incident and requested to provide real-time feedback about the situation, such as their safety status and situational information as they perceive it. Civilian or commercial level users and/or state or local entities including first responders such as police or fire officials, or paramedics, may provide feedback. Civilian or commercial level users or individuals may provide information concerning their condition, safety, and/or whatever information they may have concerning the incident. Audio, video, and/or text data may be received from the individuals via their devices. For example, a photo of an active shooter or a video of a terrorist attack may be received. The received feedback may be forwarded to law enforcement or other appropriate agencies.” The cited portion describes the individuals located within geo-fences of an incident is requested to provide feedback/situational information. And, audio, video, and/or text data is received from the individuals via their devices. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, South still teaches the above argued limitations.
Applicant argues Trepanier does not teach the above argued limitations. Trepanier is recited for teaching the limitation “generating a map indicating a physical location of a sensor.” Thus, Trepanier does not concern with the teaching of other limitations recited in the claims.
Applicant argues Trepanier’s forensic coincidence identification purpose is fundamentally different from the real-time emergency response and sensor-based video acquisition recited in the claims. The combination of South’s emergency visualization system with Trepanier’s forensic coincidence identification tool does not logically lead to the claimed invention of registering sensors at physical locations, determining they are within a geofence based on an event, and transmitting requests for video data from those sensors based on that determination. The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, at stated previously in the Non-Final Office action, South does not appear to explicitly disclose but Trepanier discloses presenting a map to a user. The teachings of Trepanier, when implemented in the South system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to show events occur at different geographical locations. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Trepanier in the South system in order to process events for coincidence identification and assist in retrieve video for surveillance cameras within the event region within the event timeframe, perform the desired video analytics and then provide the result (Trepanier: col. 6, lines 28-36). "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. "KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
Note that neither South nor Trepanier implicitly or explicitly includes statements that indicate there would be no reasonable expectation of success in combining or modifying their disclosures to meet the limitations of the claimed invention. Moreover, the detailed teachings of South and Trepanier as explained and analyzed above provide a sufficient basis for a reasonable expectation of success.
In addition, Trepanier reference must be considered in entirety as a whole, advantages and disadvantages. A given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine. Thus, even assuming Trepanier’s teachings have some disadvantages, this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine Trepanier with South.
For at least the above reasons, there is motivation to combine South and Trepanier and there is a reasonable expectation of success in doing so.
Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive, the combination of South and Trepanier still teaches every limitation of the claims. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
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.
Claims 21-23, 26-30, 33-37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by South et al. (WO 2017189451), hereinafter South in view of Trepanier et al. (US 12,347,199), hereinafter Trepanier.
As for claim 21, South teaches a method (page 3, lines 14 describes a method for interactive emergency visualization), comprising:
receiving a registration request indicating a sensor and a physical location of the sensor (page 3, lines 16-21 describe a method includes a step of requesting location information from a user device geographically associated with a multi-floor structure and receiving, in response to the request, a beacon identifier from the user device and determining on which floor of the multi-floor structure the user device is located based on the beacon identifier and storing information indicating the location of the beacon. The user device includes a beacon is construed as a sensor (see page 10, lines 11-20 describe a user device));
receiving an event notification identifying a location of an event (page 2, lines 10-11 describes a step of receiving a notification concerning an incident associated with the multi-floor structure);
determining a geofence, at least in part based on the location of the event and a distance from the location (page 2, lines 11-13 and page 8, lines 6-12 describe steps of establishing a geo-fence encompassing a portion of the multi-floor structure and determining which of a plurality of user devices were previously within a first distance from the incident based on stored location information received from the plurality of user devices); and
performing a determination that the sensor is within the geofence, at least in part based on the physical location of the sensor (page 2, lines 12-21 describe the steps of receiving current location information from a subset of the user devices determined to have previously been within the first distance and determining based on the received current location information which of the plurality of user devices are currently located within the geo-fence), wherein a request for video data from the sensor is transmitted, at least in part based on the determination (page 8, lines 13-21 describe individuals within a certain distance from the location of the incident and/or within the geo-fences are requested to provide real-time feedback about the situation and audio, video and/or text data are received from the user devices).
South fails to teach
generating a map indicating a physical location of a sensor.
Trepanier discloses
generating a map indicating a physical location of a sensor (Fig. 5C; col. 1, lines 57-67 and col. 2, lines 1-6 and col. 12, lines 7- 20 describe markers corresponding to sensor locations defined by one or more of the data sources are shown on a map. The markers corresponding to sensor locations are shown outside and inside of the boundary marker of the different geographical locations related to events).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Trepanier for presenting a map to a user. The teachings of Trepanier, when implemented in the South system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to show events occur at different geographical locations. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Trepanier in the South system in order to process events for coincidence identification and assist in retrieve video for surveillance cameras within the event region within the event timeframe, perform the desired video analytics and then provide the result (Trepanier: col. 6, lines 28-36).
As for claim 22, the combined system of South and Trepanier teaches transmitting data representing the geofence (South: page 8, lines 22-24 describe geo-fences and other data are included in a visualization generated by an interactive emergency visualization system; page 16, lines 21-26 describe when a user reports an incident, the system moves the center point of the geo-fence to a second location. Two or more of reports of such a change is required to help ensure the geo-fence is not moved prematurely or erroneously. The movement of the geo-fence triggers the transmission of a new round of emergency information messages to individuals now within the newly-located geo-fence).
As for claim 23, the combined system of South and Trepanier teaches receiving the video data from the sensor; and transmitting the video data (South: page 12, lines 16-19 describe the interactive emergency visualization system transmits audio, video received from the individual to the emergency and law enforcement agencies).
As for claim 24, the combined system of South and Trepanier teaches generating a map indicating the physical location of the sensor (South: page 16, lines 14-15 describe a processor informs individuals inside and outside of the geo-fence about the incident via a user interface of the user device).
As for claim 26, the combined system of South and Trepanier teaches transmitting a request indicating the sensor; and receiving a response including video data from the sensor (South: page 8, lines 10-15 describe individuals within a certain distance from the location of the incident and within the geo-fences are informed about the incident and requested to provide real-time feedback about the situation, such as their safety status and situational information as they perceive it).
As for claim 27, the combined system of South and Trepanier teaches performing real-time monitoring of the sensor (South: page 8, lines 13-15 describe the individuals within a certain distance from the location of the incident, are requested to provide real-time feedback; page 41, lines 14-15 describe geo-fences are defined in real-time in response to an incident).
As for claim 28, the combined system of South and Trepanier teaches an apparatus (South: Fig. 2; page 13, lines 21-23 describe an interactive emergency visualization system comprising a server), comprising :
a network interface that receives a registration request indicating a sensor and a physical location of the sensor and receives an event notification identifying a location of an event (South: page 17, lines 26-30 describe the system includes a communications interface that is operable to send and receive communications via the Internet and local networks; page 3, lines 16-21 describe a method includes a step of requesting location information from a user device geographically associated with a multi-floor structure and receiving, in response to the request, a beacon identifier from the user device and determining on which floor of the multi-floor structure the user device is located based on the beacon identifier and storing information indicating the location of the beacon. The user device includes a beacon is construed as a sensor (see page 10, lines 11-20 describe a user device); page 2, lines 10-11 describes a step of receiving a notification concerning an incident associated with the multi-floor structure; page 14, lines 25-30 describe the processor is operable to send and receive notifications and the notification includes a location of the incident); and
a processor configured to determine a geofence, at least in part based on the location of the event and a distance from the location (South: page 13, lines 27-31 and page 14, lines 9-15 describe a processor and programs to implement functions; page 2, lines 11-13 and page 8, lines 6-12 describe steps of establishing a geo-fence encompassing a portion of the multi-floor structure and determining which of a plurality of user devices were previously within a first distance from the incident based on stored location information received from the plurality of user devices), and to perform a determination that the sensor is within the geofence, at least in part based on the physical location of the sensor (South: page 2, lines 12-21 describe the steps of receiving current location information from a subset of the user devices determined to have previously been within the first distance and determining based on the received current location information which of the plurality of user devices are currently located within the geo-fence), wherein a request for video data from the sensor is transmitted, at least in part based on the determination (South: page 8, lines 13-21 describe individuals within a certain distance from the location of the incident and/or within the geo-fences are requested to provide real-time feedback about the situation and audio, video and/or text data are received from the user devices).
As for claim 29, the combined system of South and Trepanier teaches wherein the network interface transmits data representing the geofence (South: page 8, lines 22-24 describe geo-fences and other data are included in a visualization generated by an interactive emergency visualization system; page 16, lines 21-26 describe when a user reports an incident, the system moves the center point of the geo-fence to a second location. Two or more of reports of such a change is required to help ensure the geo-fence is not moved prematurely or erroneously. The movement of the geo-fence triggers the transmission of a new round of emergency information messages to individuals now within the newly-located geo-fence).
As for claim 30, the combined system of South and Trepanier teaches wherein the network interface receives the video data from the sensor and transmits the video data (South: page 12, lines 16-19 describe the interactive emergency visualization system transmits audio, video received from the individual to the emergency and law enforcement agencies).
As for claim 33, the combined system of South and Trepanier teaches wherein the network interface transmits a request indicating the sensor and receives a response including video data from the sensor (South: page 8, lines 10-15 describe individuals within a certain distance from the location of the incident and within the geo-fences are informed about the incident and requested to provide real-time feedback about the situation, such as their safety status and situational information as they perceive it).
As for claim 34, the combined system of South and Trepanier teaches wherein the apparatus is configured to perform real-time monitoring of the sensor (South: page 8, lines 13-15 describe the individuals within a certain distance from the location of the incident, are requested to provide real-time feedback; page 41, lines 14-15 describe geo-fences are defined in real-time in response to an incident).
As for claims 35-37 and 40, these claims listed all the same elements of 21-24 and 27, respectively, but in a computer readable storage medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processing unit of an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform operations (South: page 14, lines 9-21 describe a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions for execution by a machine that includes a processor and causes the machine to perform operations). Therefore, the supporting rational of the rejection to claims 21-25 and 27 applies equally as well to claims 35-39 and 40, respectively.
Claims 25, 32 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over South (WO 2017189451) in view of Trepanier (US 12,347,199) further in view of Liu et al. (US 2020/0112726), hereinafter Liu.
As for claim 25, the combined system of South and Trepanier fails to teach wherein the video data is to be encrypted.
Liu discloses wherein video data is to be encrypted (paragraph [0140] describes captured video data is encrypted).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Liu for encrypting video data. The teachings of Liu, when implemented in the South and Trepanier system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to protect privacy of data being transmitted. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Liu in the South and Trepanier system in order to prevent malicious intervention to data being transmitted from client devices to a server.
As for claim 32, the combined system of South and Trepanier fails to teach wherein the video data is to be encrypted.
Liu discloses wherein video data is to be encrypted (paragraph [0140] describes captured video data is encrypted).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Liu for encrypting video data. The teachings of Liu, when implemented in the South and Trepanier system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to protect privacy of data being transmitted. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Liu in the South and Trepanier system in order to prevent malicious intervention to data being transmitted from client devices to a server.
As for claim 39, the claim listed all the same elements of claim 25, but in a computer readable storage medium encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processing unit of an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform operations (page 14, lines 9-21 describe a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions for execution by a machine that includes a processor and causes the machine to perform operations). Therefore, the supporting rational of the rejection to claim 25 applies equally as well to claim 39.
Conclusions
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burtner et al. (US 2022/0180309) teach integrated asset tracking system and method
Ready-Campbell et al. (US 2022/0070611) teach graphical user interface for dynamically updating a geofence
Gallagher et al. (US 2019/0043613) teach tracking program interface.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 L. T N. whose telephone number is (571)272-1013. The examiner can normally be reached M & Th 5:30 am - 2:30 pm 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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/L.T.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2459 /TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights