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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 08/14/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as final (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Under MPEP §803, a restriction requirement is proper only when (1) the claimed inventions are independent or distinct, and (2) examining all claims together would impose a serious search or examination burden on the USPTO examiner.
Applicant's election with traverse is on the ground(s) that the features recited in the claims of Groups I and II are capable of use together and are not mutually exclusive. This is not found persuasive because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement. In other words, applicant makes a broad statement of the groups being capable of use together and are not mutually exclusive, however, does not provide reasons or evidence as to why this is true.
Based on applicant’s amendment to claim 19 reciting the subject matter of both claims 1 and 10:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-9 and 19, drawn to a system that aggregates sensor data from many properties, determines risk for subregions or properties, and uses that determination to decide whether a property needs closer attention. If a property seems occupied, the system determines a safe zone and a route to it, then presents that information on a map., classified in H04W4/90.
II. Claims 10-17 and 19, drawn to prioritizing multiple assistance requests and adjust how often it queries or analyzes data based on risk and occupancy according to a ranking basis., classified in H04W4/029.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus such as a computer that aggregates sensor data from many properties, determines risk for subregions or properties, and uses that determination to decide whether a property needs closer attention. If a property seems occupied, the system determines a safe zone and a route to it, then presents that information on a map. This invention is different from Claims 10-17 and 19 that prioritizes multiple assistance requests and adjusts how often it queries or analyzes data based on risk and occupancy according to a ranking basis.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. Since these are two different inventions, it will require the examiner to go through two different searches in two different technology areas.
Based on the above and the fact that applicant did not provide appropriate showings or evidence (MPEP 803), the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menard et al. (US 11580843 B2, hereinafter Menard) in view of Rezvani (US 11060873 B2, hereinafter Rezvani) and in further view of Correnti et al. (US 20200240802 A1, hereinafter Correnti)
Regarding Claim 1, Menard teaches a method comprising: receiving, for each of a plurality of properties in a geographic region and during an emergency in at least a first subregion of the geographic region that includes a first property, sensor data from one or more sensors located at the respective property, the plurality of properties including the first property in the first subregion of the geographic region and a second property in a second, different subregion of the geographic region;
(Menard [Col. 1, line 64] receiving, for a multi-tenant dwelling unit (MDU), a map of the MDU, where the map includes locations corresponding to multiple sensors at the MDU and defines multiple sub-areas of the MDU, receiving sensor data from one or more sensors of the multiple sensors, where the sensor data is indicative of a fire event at the MDU.)
(Note: MDU and sub-areas in the reference are the “geographic region” and “subregion” respectively in the claim language.)
(Menard [Col. 7, line 64] For example, two adjacent apartments can be determined to be included in the fire event based on sensor data collected from sensors located within the two adjacent apartments.)
(Note: second adjacent apartment in the reference is considered to be “different subregion of the geographic region” of the claimed limitation)
generating, using the sensor data received from the sensors located at the pluralities of properties, a risk score i) for at least a second, different subregion of the geographic region ii) that indicates a likelihood that properties in the second, different subregion of the geographic region will be impacted by the emergency;
(Menard [Col. 7, line 55] risk score can be assigned, for example, utilizing one or more pre-trained machine learned models that receive the aggregated sensor data 112 and generate a risk score as output. In one example, a risk score of high can be assigned to an event 113 (also referred to within as a “fire event”) that includes sensor data 112 collected from multiple sub-areas 106 in the MDU 104 where sensor data 112 from sensors 110 in multiple sub-areas 106 are indicative of the event 113, e.g., a fire that has spread into multiple sub-areas (e.g., multiple apartments). For example, two adjacent apartments can be determined to be included in the fire event based on sensor data collected from sensors located within the two adjacent apartments.)
(Note: two adjacent apartments in the cited reference reads on to the “properties in the second, different subregion of the geographic region” in the claim language)
But Menard fails to teach in response to determining that the risk score satisfies a score threshold, determining, using sensor data received from the one or more sensors at the second property, whether the second property is likely occupied by a person;
and in response to determining that the second property is likely occupied by a person: determining, using at least some of the sensor data and a type of the emergency, a safe zone for the second property that indicates a physical location at which a risk of injury caused by the emergency is likely less than another location within a threshold distance of the second property;
determining, for presentation on a user interface, a pathway from a predicted location of the person to the safe zone;
and providing, to a device for presentation in the user interface, instructions to cause the device to present, in the user interface, a map of at least some of the geographic region including a) the predicted location of the person and the safe zone and b) the pathway from the predicted location of the person to a safe zone.
However, in a similar endeavor, Rezvani teaches in response to determining that the risk score satisfies a score threshold, determining, using sensor data received from the one or more sensors at the second property, whether the second property is likely occupied by a person;
(Rezvani [Col. 1, line 61] by a monitoring system that is configured to monitor a property, sensor data from one or more sensors that are located at the property; [Col. 2, line 67] by the monitoring system and based on the sensor data, a location of a person inside the property;
[Col. 11, line 1] Location data associated with the user devices 140, 150 can then be used by the drone device 120 to determine the region of the property where the user is located during an emergency incident within the property.)
and in response to determining that the second property is likely occupied by a person: determining, using at least some of the sensor data and a type of the emergency, a safe zone for the second property that indicates a physical location at which a risk of injury caused by the emergency is likely less than another location within a threshold distance of the second property;
(Rezvani [Col. 1, line 63] based on the sensor data, determining, by the monitoring system, that there is an emergency condition at the property; in response to determining that there is an emergency condition at the property, determining, by the monitoring system and based on the sensor data, a location of a person inside the property; based on the sensor data, the location of the person inside the property, and on characteristics of the property, determining, by the monitoring system, a first path to the person and a second path to guide the person away from the emergency condition;)
determining, for presentation on a user interface, a pathway from a predicted location of the person to the safe zone;
(Rezvani [Col. 5, line 37] Once the drone device 120 reaches the user's location, the drone device 120 may guide the user through an exit path to safely navigate through and exit the property.
[Col. 13, line 24] the drone device 120 may navigate between the starting point and the ending point of each path along a particular pathway.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified Menard by incorporating Rezvani to be able to generate risk score for subregions/properties.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled decision making of which areas need attention.
But the combination of Menard and Rezvani fail to teach providing, to a device for presentation in the user interface, instructions to cause the device to present, in the user interface, a map of at least some of the geographic region including a) the predicted location of the person and the safe zone and b) the pathway from the predicted location of the person to a safe zone.
However, in a similar endeavor, Correnti teaches providing, to a device for presentation in the user interface, instructions to cause the device to present, in the user interface, a map of at least some of the geographic region including a) the predicted location of the person and the safe zone and b) the pathway from the predicted location of the person to a safe zone.
(Correnti [0005] The operations may include receiving a request for a safe path to a property occupant that is located inside the property, responsive to the request for a safe path to the property occupant that is located inside the property, obtaining a floor plan of the property, obtaining real-time sensor data generated by one or more sensors installed at the property that includes (i) sensor data indicative of one or more hazards at the property and (ii) a current location of the property occupant, generating a map of the property based on (i) the obtained real-time sensor data and (ii) the obtained floor plan, determining, based on the generated map of the property, a safe path between an exit of the property and the current location of the property occupant, and providing, for output on a user device, the map of the property that visually indicates the safe path.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified Menard and Rezvani and by incorporating Correnti to arrive at the claimed invention to determine occupancy-based safe-zone routing
The motivation of doing so would have allowed actionable evacuation guidance for likely occupied properties.
Regarding Claim 8, Menard, Rezvani and Correnti teach the method of claim 1 and Menard further teaches wherein: generating the risk score for the second, different subregion of the geographic region comprises generating the risk score for the second property;
(Menard [Col. 7, line 67] a risk score of low can be assigned to an event 113 that includes sensor data 112 collected from multiple sub-areas 106 in the MDU 104 where sensor data 112 from only a particular sensor 110 of multiple sensors 110 is indicative of the event 113.)
and determining whether the second property is likely occupied by the person is responsive to determining that the risk score for the second property satisfies the score threshold.
(Menard [Col. 7, line 55] The risk score can be assigned, for example, utilizing one or more pre-trained machine learned models that receive the aggregated sensor data 112 and generate a risk score as output.
[Col. 9, line 26] The real-time validated sensor data 112, e.g., imaging data, smoke detection data, etc., can be utilized to develop real-time understanding by the targeted response system 102 of the containment/spread of the event 113, occupancy states of sub-areas, emergency routes, and the like.)
The motivation of doing so would have the data basis for risk assessment across many properties.
Claims 2-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menard et al. (US 11580843 B2, hereinafter Menard) in view of Rezvani (US 11060873 B2, hereinafter Rezvani) and Correnti et al. (US 20200240802 A1, hereinafter Correnti) and in further view of Sutherland (US 20210084710 A1, hereinafter Sutherland)
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti teach the method of Claim 1 and Menard further teaches determining an updated predicted location of the person;
(Menard [Col. 3, line 46] A real-time map of the premises can be updated with sensor data and may provide emergency responders a better understanding of the locations/risk level of the hazards and residents in need to target their response.
[Col. 8, line 60] an alert 136 can be provided to residents of sub-areas where at least a threshold occupancy confidence score is determined. In other words, sub-areas which are likely to have people present within can receive alerts 136.)
determining whether the updated predicted location satisfies a distance threshold for the second property;
(Menard [Co.14, line 6] The sensor data 112 can be received from a group of sensors 110 that are all located within a threshold range of a particular sub-area 106 or sub-areas, e.g., all sensors can be located within or nearby a particular apartment.)
But the combined teachings of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti fail to teach in response to determining that the updated predicted location does not satisfy the distance threshold for the second property, changing a frequency of analysis of sensor data for the second property.
However, in a similar endeavor, Sutherland teaches in response to determining that the updated predicted location does not satisfy the distance threshold for the second property, changing a frequency of analysis of sensor data for the second property.
(Sutherland [0076, line 13] A secondary alert group can include teachers and staff that are located within a threshold distance of the school, while a tertiary alert group can include teachers and staff that are outside of the threshold distance of the school.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified combined teachings of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti and by further incorporating Sutherland to have necessary means to have the updated data on the emergency situation of the persons.
The motivation of doing so would have determined whether evacuation guidance is needed.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Menard, Rezvani, Correnti and Sutherland teach the method of Claim 2 and Menard further teaches changing the frequency of analysis of sensor data for the second property is responsive to determining that the second property is unoccupied.
(Menard [Col. 14, line 49] determining an occupancy state for a sub-area includes collecting sensor data from a subset of sensors located at the sub-area and determining, from the collected sensor data, an occupancy confidence score, generating a real-time fire event map based on occupancy confidence scores, and providing to one or more users, the real-time fire event map. For example, the alert generation module 126 may determine that there is a 90% confidence that a first apartment is occupied and a 0% chance that a second apartment is occupied.)
In a similar endeavor, Sutherland further teaches, wherein: determining whether the updated predicted location satisfies the distance threshold for the second property comprises determining whether the second property is unoccupied;
(Sutherland [0076, line 17] A secondary alert group can include teachers and staff that are located within a threshold distance of the school.)
(Sutherland [0076, line 17] while a tertiary alert group can include teachers and staff that are outside of the threshold distance of the school.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified combined teachings of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti and by further incorporating Sutherland to have threshold comparison.
The motivation of doing so would have enabled filtering where the system should focus attention.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti teach the method of Claim 1 but fail to teach wherein: determining the safe zone comprises determining the safe zone that is in another subregion of the geographic region than the second, different subregion.
However, in a similar endeavor, Sutherland teaches wherein: determining the safe zone comprises determining the safe zone that is in another subregion of the geographic region than the second, different subregion.
(Sutherland [0063, line 15] The emergency alert server system can then notify all first responders who are part of the school community who are within a threshold distance from the geographic area defining the school until at least five first responders respond. When the first responders in the school community have been notified and the number of responses received by the system is lower than the threshold, the emergency alert server system can locate additional devices assigned to users in other communities who are within the same geographic area and have signed up for fire or safety alerts.)
(note: Communities in the reference is the subregion in the claim language.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified combined teachings of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti and by further incorporating Sutherland to have the determination of safe zone.
The motivation of doing so would have transformed analysis into user-facing action
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti teach the method of Claim 1 and Correnti further teaches wherein: receiving the sensor data comprises receiving, for at least one property in a third, different subregion of the geographic region, at least some of the sensor data;
(Correnti [0008] the operations may further comprise receiving (i) second sensor data generated by one or more sensors installed at a different property than the property.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified Menard and Rezvani and by incorporating Correnti to have region-wide sensor aggregation during an emergency.
The motivation of doing so would have data basis for risk assessment across many properties.
But the combination of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti fail to teach determining the safe zone comprises determining the safe zone in the third, different subregion of the geographic region.
However, in a similar endeavor, Sutherland teaches determining the safe zone comprises determining the safe zone in the third, different subregion of the geographic region.
(Sutherland [0076, line 17] while a tertiary alert group can include teachers and staff that are outside of the threshold distance of the school.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified combined teachings of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti and by further incorporating Sutherland to have the determination of safe zone.
The motivation of doing so would have transformed analysis into user-facing action.
Claims 4, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menard et al. (US 11580843 B2, hereinafter Menard) in view of Rezvani (US 11060873 B2, hereinafter Rezvani) and Correnti et al. (US 20200240802 A1, hereinafter Correnti) and in further view of KEVIN et al. (GB 2626564 A, hereinafter Kevin)
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti teach the method of Claim 1 but fail to teach wherein: determining the safe zone comprises determining the safe zone that is outside of the geographic region.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kevin teaches wherein: determining the safe zone comprises determining the safe zone that is outside of the geographic region.
(Kevin [Col. 3, one 39] For example, if the first location determining means provides a location indication, but the second location determining means does not provide a location indication, a location may be inferred as somewhere inside the detection area of the first location determining means and outside of the detection area of the second location determining means.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified combined teachings of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti and by further incorporating Kevin to determine a safe zone.
The motivation of doing so would have provided actionable evacuation guidance for likely unoccupied properties.
Regarding Claim 7, Menard, Rezvani and Correnti teach the method of claim 1 and Rezvani further teaches wherein: receiving the sensor data comprises receiving the sensor data for one or more properties a) in the first subregion of the geographic region
(Rezvani [Col. 1, line 60] The operations can include: obtaining, by a monitoring system that is configured to monitor a property, sensor data from one or more sensors that are located at the property; based on the sensor data, determining, by the monitoring system, that there is an emergency condition at the property; in response to determining that there is an emergency condition at the property, determining, by the monitoring system and based on the sensor data.)
(Note: Claim language requires Examiner to find one of two limitations, examiner has elaborated one and that is considered to be sufficient.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified Menard and Correnti and by incorporating Rezvani to arrive at the necessary means of the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have the data basis for risk assessment across many properties.
But the combination of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti do not teach b) that do not include the second property.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kevin teaches b) that do not include the second property.
(Kevin [Col. 10, line 17] The system may comprise a data connection 9, an input and/or output device 7, and an third location determining means 8 comprising a first sensor of a third type 70, which is of a different type to the first and second type. Each of these are optional and they may be combined in any combination. For example, all or none may be present.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified Menard, Correnti and Rezvani and further incorporating Kevin to arrive at the necessary means of the invention.
The motivation of doing so would have the data basis for risk assessment across many properties.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti teach the method of Claim 1 but fail to teach generating, for a third, different subregion of the geographic region, a second risk score;
and determining that the second risk score does not satisfy the score threshold, wherein determining the safe zone comprises determining the safe zone in the third, different subregion of the geographic region in response to determining that the second risk score does not satisfy the score threshold.
However, in a similar endeavor, Kevin teaches generating, for a third, different subregion of the geographic region, a second risk score;
(Kevin [Col. 1, line 28] receive a third input from the boundary-marking means, and determine the position of the one or more zones according to the third input; determine a location of the entity during the time window, with respect to the position of the one or more zones, according to the first, second and third input; and determine a risk classification of the entity during the time window, according to the location of the entity; and an alerting device configured to generate an alert according to the risk classification.)
and determining that the second risk score does not satisfy the score threshold, wherein determining the safe zone comprises determining the safe zone in the third, different subregion of the geographic region in response to determining that the second risk score does not satisfy the score threshold.
(Kevin [Col. 5, line 11] Accordingly, the system may be set up so that one or more zones feature areas considered to be above a risk threshold, and a risk classification may be determined according to the location of the entity with respect to these higher risk zones. For example, the system may be configured to comprise one or more zones being considered relatively riskier, and an alert may be raised if an entity enters one or more such riskier zones. [Col. 5, line 19] Accordingly, the system may be set up so that one or more zones feature areas considered to below a risk threshold, and a risk classification may be determined according to the location of the entity with respect to these lower risk zones. Thus, the system may be configured to comprise one or more zones being considered relatively safer, and an alert may be raised if an entity leaves one or more such safer zones.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the examined application to have modified combined teachings of Menard, Rezvani and Correnti and by further incorporating Kevin to have risk score and threshold comparison.
The motivation of doing so would have provided actionable evacuation guidance for likely unoccupied properties considered to be safe zone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANA HASSAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-8939. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 5712705371. 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.
/RANA H MAHMUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2644
/KATHY W WANG-HURST/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights