DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, in part, “determine an evacuation destination based on the crowdedness information, and generate an evacuation route from the evacuee’s original place to the determined evacuation destination.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally determine where an evacuee should evacuate to based on information on crowdedness and generate a route from their original location to that destination. Mental processes that can be performed in the human mind have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied in some meaningful way (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim recites an additional element of “acquire position information of an evacuee’s original place and crowdedness information of an evacuation destination candidate.” Mere data gathering, when not specifying new techniques or methods, to perform an abstract idea has been held as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In light of the specification, this limitation does not specify any new techniques and is, as such, insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim further recites an additional element of “notify an evacuee of the generated evacuation route.” The display of collected and analyzed information has been held as being insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g); see also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The claim further includes additional elements of “at least one memory storing instructions” and “at least one processor configured to execute the instructions.” The use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind" (Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites, in part, “generate the evacuation route candidate” and “determine an evacuation route based on the crowdedness information of the evacuation route candidate.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally determine a candidate route and finalize a route based on provided crowdedness information of the route.
The claim further recites “acquire crowdedness information of the evacuation route candidate.” As noted above in the rejection of claim 1, the collection of available information is insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “change the evacuation destination based on the crowdedness information of the evacuation route candidate.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally determine to evacuate to a different destination based on the original route being too crowded.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “predict a change in the crowdedness information of the evacuation destination candidate based on the movement information, and determine an evacuation destination based on the predicted change in the crowdedness information of the evacuation destination candidate.” These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally predict how many more people are going to a destination based on information specifying movement of people towards that destination, and determine to change their destination based on that original destination becoming too crowded in the future.
The claim further recites “acquire movement information of a person present in the evacuation route.” As noted above in the rejection of claim 1, the collection of available information is insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “preferentially determine an evacuation destination candidate that is less crowded among evacuation destination candidates as the evacuation destination.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally determine a preferred destination based on crowd information.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “preferentially determine an evacuation destination candidate in which there is no emergency vehicle as the evacuation destination.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally determine a preferred destination based on the presence of emergency vehicles at the destination.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim merely specifies the “original place” and the “evacuation destination candidates”, which does not change the determination in claim 1 from being an abstract idea, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim merely further specifies the “crowdedness information”, which does not change the acquisition of that information from being insignificant extra-solution activity.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites, in part, “when a level of the evacuee's original place differs from a level of the determined evacuation destination, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate an evacuation route that extends over a plurality of levels.” This limitation, when read in light of the specification, is a mental process capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally generate an evacuation route that goes over a plurality of levels of a building.
The claim recites no additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim merely further specifies that the facility includes a plurality of levels, thereby merely specifying the technological environment that the abstract idea is applied to.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites, in part, “determining an evacuation destination based on the crowdedness information” and “generating an evacuation route from an evacuee's original place to the determined evacuation destination”. These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally determine where an evacuee should evacuate to based on information on crowdedness and generate a route from their original location to that destination. Mental processes that can be performed in the human mind have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied in some meaningful way (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim further recites an additional element of “acquiring crowdedness information of an evacuation destination candidate.” Mere data gathering, when not specifying new techniques or methods, to perform an abstract idea has been held as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In light of the specification, this limitation does not specify any new techniques and is, as such, insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim further recites an additional element of “notifying an evacuee of the generated evacuation route.” The display of collected and analyzed information has been held as being insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g); see also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites, in part, “determining an evacuation destination based on the crowdedness information” and “generating an evacuation route from an evacuee's original place to the determined evacuation destination”. These limitations, when read in light of the specification, are mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind. A human being can mentally determine where an evacuee should evacuate to based on information on crowdedness and generate a route from their original location to that destination. Mental processes that can be performed in the human mind have been held as being abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not purport the improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied by way of a particular machine, does not effect a tangible transformation in state of a particular article, and is not otherwise applied in some meaningful way (see MPEP 2106.05).
The claim further recites an additional element of “acquiring crowdedness information of an evacuation destination candidate.” Mere data gathering, when not specifying new techniques or methods, to perform an abstract idea has been held as insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). In light of the specification, this limitation does not specify any new techniques and is, as such, insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim further recites an additional element of “notifying an evacuee of the generated evacuation route.” The display of collected and analyzed information has been held as being insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g); see also Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The claim further includes an additional element of “a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program.” The use of generic computer components to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). "Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind" (Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lakshminarayanan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0158233 A1) [hereinafter “Lakshminarayanan”].
Regarding claim 1, Lakshminarayanan discloses an evacuation support system comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions (memory 116), and
at least one processor (processing device 112) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire position information of an evacuee's original place (see [0046]) and crowdedness information of an evacuation destination candidate (see [0034]-[0036], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], and [0064]-[0066]);
determine an evacuation destination based on the crowdedness information, and generate an evacuation route from the evacuee's original place to the determined evacuation destination (see [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], [0064]-[0066], and [0068]); and
notify an evacuee of the generated evacuation route (see [0037]-[0038] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 2, Lakshminarayanan further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate the evacuation route candidate (see [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], [0064]-[0066], and [0068]), and acquire crowdedness information of the evacuation route candidate (see [0035]-[0036], [0046], and [0053]-[0057]), and determine an evacuation route based on the crowdedness information of the evacuation route candidate (see [0035]-[0036], [0046], and [0053]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 3, Lakshminarayanan further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to change the evacuation destination based on the crowdedness information of the evacuation route candidate (see [0035]-[0036], [0046], and [0049]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Lakshminarayanan further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to acquire movement information of a person present in the evacuation route, and predict a change in the crowdedness information of the evacuation destination candidate based on the movement information (see [0035]-[0037], [0046], and [0053]-[0057]), and determine an evacuation destination based on the predicted change in the crowdedness information of the evacuation destination candidate (see [0035]-[0036], [0046], [0053]-[0057], and [0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Lakshminarayanan further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to preferentially determine an evacuation destination candidate that is less crowded among evacuation destination candidates as the evacuation destination (see [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], [0064]-[0066], and [0068]).
Regarding claim 6, Lakshminarayanan further discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to preferentially determine an evacuation destination candidate in which there is no emergency vehicle as the evacuation destination (see [0059]).
Regarding claim 13, Lakshminarayanan discloses an evacuation support method comprising:
acquiring crowdedness information of an evacuation destination candidate (see [0034]-[0036], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], and [0064]-[0066]);
determining an evacuation destination based on the crowdedness information (see [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], [0064]-[0066], and [0068]);
generating an evacuation route from an evacuee's original place to the determined evacuation destination (see [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], [0064]-[0066], and [0068]); and
notifying an evacuee of the generated evacuation route (see [0037]-[0038] and [0064]).
Regarding claim 14, Lakshminarayanan discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program (memory 116; see [0029]) for causing a computer to perform:
acquiring crowdedness information of an evacuation destination candidate (see [0034]-[0036], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], and [0064]-[0066]);
determining an evacuation destination based on the crowdedness information (see [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], [0064]-[0066], and [0068]);
generating an evacuation route from an evacuee's original place to the determined evacuation destination (see [0034]-[0036], [0044], [0049]-[0053], [0055]-[0057], [0064]-[0066], and [0068]); and
notifying an evacuee of the generated evacuation route (see [0037]-[0038] and [0064]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshminarayanan in view of Asaro et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. US 2018/0204428 A1) [hereinafter “Asaro”].
Regarding claim 7, Lakshminarayanan teaches the evacuee’s original place is a place where there is a person moving in a facility or a predetermined area (see emergency locations 402 in Figure 4; see also [0042]).
Lakshminarayanan does not expressly teach the evacuation destination candidates are a plurality of entrances or exits of the facility. Lakshminarayanan teaches a variety of possible emergency havens 424 (see at least [0033] and Figure 4), but does not expressly specify these havens are the entrances/exists of the facility the evacuee is originally present in.
Asaro also generally teaches a system for providing evacuation assistance to users (see Abstract). Asaro teaches that a generated evacuation route for a user in a building is from the user’s location to an exit to the building to allow the safe exit of the users from the building (see [0040]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention taught by Lakshminarayanan such that the evacuation destination candidates include a plurality of exists of the facility, in view of Asaro, as Asaro teaches such routing allows for the user to be safely guided to an exit of the building in the case of an emergency within the building.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lakshminarayanan and Asaro, as applied to claim 7 above, further teaches the crowdedness information of the evacuation destination candidate includes a crowdedness state of a road accessible from an entrance or exit of the facility (see [0034]-[0037], [0046], [0049]-[0057], and [0064]-[0066] of Lakshminarayanan).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lakshminarayanan and Asaro, as applied to claim 7 above, further teaches the facility includes a plurality of levels (see Figure 4 of Lakshminarayanan), and when a level of the evacuee’s original place differs from a level of the determined evacuation destination, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate an evacuation route that extends over a plurality of levels (see [0032] of Asaro and the rejection of claim 7 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Jia et al. (US 2020/0242901 A1) generally teaches:
An evacuation controller, an evacuation control system, and a mobile communication terminal. The evacuation controller includes: a local control unit capable of storing or acquiring evacuation path information to or from a cloud via a mobile communication terminal, wherein the evacuation path information is configured at least based on a layout of a building and a location of a danger occurred in the building. According to the evacuation controller and the evacuation control system, exchange of evacuation path information between the local control unit and a remote provider service system is realized through exchange between the mobile communication terminal and the cloud; or by configuring evacuation path information directly in the local control unit, the local control unit can clearly and timely learn about the local evacuation path information and can evacuate people based on the local evacuation path information.
Tadano (US 2018/0096573 A1) generally teaches:
A guidance assistance system or the like which can efficiently guide a crowd is provided. The guidance assistance system includes an arrangement evaluation unit which derives a priority of arrangement of detection means for detecting a status of congestion on a travel route or a priority of arrangement of a guide sign for guiding the crowd based on information related to a status of the travel route and an order determination unit which determines an order of arrangement of the detection means or an order of arrangement of the guide sign based on information related to the priority.
Tadano (US 2018/0080778 A1) generally teaches:
A guidance assistance system and the like for reducing an influence on a deviation of a crowd from a travel route are provided. The guidance assistance system includes deviation risk evaluation means for deriving a deviation risk representing an influence on a deviation of a crowd from a travel route at a predetermined point on the travel route based on information relating to circumstances of the travel route and a route related to the travel route, and priority order determining means for determining an order of priority relating to arrangement of a guide sign that guides the crowd based on the deviation risk.
Beraudier et al. (US 2015/0039364 A1) generally teaches:
A method and system for planning relocation of people from disaster locations to safe locations. Received are an identification of: a disaster locations at which a respective disaster is predicted to occur, numbers of persons to be evacuated during a specified range of time at each disaster location, safe locations available for relocating the persons to be evacuated, vehicles available to transport the persons from the disaster locations to the safe locations, each vehicle's capacity of a maximum number of people that can be simultaneously transported, and each vehicle's current location. An optimal plan is generated for (i) evacuating the identified number of persons from the disaster locations during the respective specified ranges of time and (ii) transporting the evacuated persons to the safe locations, utilizing the received identifications. All persons evacuated from the disaster locations have been relocated at the safe locations by elapse of the N time intervals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHUL SOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-9411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7-5 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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at (571) 270-5442. 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.
/ANSHUL SOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667