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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 12/9/2024. Claims 1-25 are pending in this office action. This is the first action on the merits. The two Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed on behalf of this case on 12/9/2024 and 12/17/2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 4-5, 7, 9-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 21-25 before this first action on the merits is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A pollution sensor configured to collect pollutant data in respect of a pollution at a site (see claim 25)
An audio and/or image data sensor configured to captured audio and/or image data at the site (see claim 25)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
From review of the specification the following appears to be the corresponding structure:
-Pollution sensor: Paragraph 0112 “Examples of types of pollution sensor 330 include microphones for sensing noise pollution, accelerometers for measuring vibration, and photoresistors or photodiodes for measuring light. The specific type of sensor used is not limited herein and may be any known sensor suitable for measuring the desired type of pollutions. “
-Audio and/or image data sensor: Paragraph 0113 “The audio and/or image data capture devices 340 may comprise one or more microphones or cameras of a variety of types. Similarly to pollution sensors 330, audio and/or image data capture devices 340 may be positioned relative to potential polluters 320 such that meaningful audio and/or image data may be captured. As shown in Figure 3, the audio and/or image data capture device 340 is positioned to receive audio and/or image data from the loading bay outside warehouse 310.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4, 6-9, 11-13, 16, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 3, Applicant recites the time of day, the day of the week, and the time in the year. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims, as they are not previously recited in the claim or the claim from which it depends. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret the claim as follows:
a time of day, a day of a week, and a time in a year.
As per claim 4, 6-8, 11-13, 16, and 19-21, Applicant uses indefinite language including maybe, optionally, and or such as, therefore making it unclear as to whether or not the corresponding limitations or subsequent limitations that depend off of such indefinite language are actually required to be performed. Therefore the appropriate metes and bounds cannot be ascertained with claims that include such indefinite language.
Further claim 9 that depends off of claim 7 is rejected based on its dependency under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
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.
First, Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) collecting pollution information, generating reports based on the collected information, and providing the information to others.
Collecting pollution information, generating reports based on the collected information, and providing the information to others is subject matter related to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teachings, and following rules or instructions which is certain methods of organizing human activities.
Certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) And (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Specifically as recited in the claims:
Examiner notes that the Examiner has underlined and bolded the additional elements in the claims. Limitations not bolded and underlined are considered a part of the abstract idea.
1 (Original) A computer implemented method of generating a pollution event report, the method comprising:
receiving pollutant data in respect of a pollutant measured at a site;
determining, based on the pollutant data, that a pollution event has occurred at the site;
receiving, based on the determination that a pollution event has occurred at the site, audio and/or image data captured at the site;
generating a pollution event report including an association between the pollution event and the audio and/or image data;
and sending, to a terminal, at least a portion of the pollution event report, the being associated with a user associated with the site.
2. (Original) The method of claim 1, wherein a pollution event is determined to have occurred when the pollutant is measured to have breached a threshold level.
3. (Original) The method of claim 2, wherein the threshold level is based on at least one or more of the pollutant, the time of day, the day of the week, or the time in the year.
4. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the pollutant may be one or more of noise, light, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, one or more nitrous oxides, particulate matter; wherein optionally the particulate matter has diameters less than 10 pm, less than 4 pm, less than 2.5 pm, or less than 1 pm.
5. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 2, further comprising obtaining a baseline level of the pollutant; wherein the pollution event report includes a comparison of the baseline level of the pollutant with the measured pollutant level.
6. (Original) The method of claim 5, wherein the baseline level is a historic average for a corresponding time period to the time at which the pollution event is determined to occur; wherein optionally the corresponding time period is one or more of a time of day, a day of the week, and a day of the month.
7. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the pollution event lasts for a predetermined duration starting from when the pollution event is determined to have occurred; wherein further pollution events based on the same pollutant cannot occur within the predetermined duration; and wherein optionally the predetermined duration is 15 minutes, half an hour, one hour, or two hours.
8. (Original) The method of claim 7, wherein the pollution event retrospectively begins a predefined period before the pollution event is determined to have occurred; and wherein optionally the predetermined duration is 15 minutes, half an hour, one hour, or two hours.
9. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 7, wherein the predetermined duration and/or the predefined period is different for different pollutants.
10. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the audio and/or image data includes one or more of a photograph, a thermal image, an acoustic image, a video clip, and an audio clip; and/or wherein the audio and/or image data is captured in response to the determination that a pollution event has occurred.
11. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the audio and/or image data is captured on a continuous basis and stored for a predetermined period of time after which it is deleted if no pollution event is determined to have occurred within the predetermined period of time; wherein optionally the predetermined period of time is 15 minutes, half an hour, or one hour.
12. (Currently Amended)The method of claim 1, comprising identifying, from the received audio and/or image data, one or more potential polluters; wherein the pollution event reports includes the one or more identified potential polluters; and wherein optionally the one or more potential polluters includes one or more vehicles, pieces of machinery, pieces of equipment, and people.
13. (Original) The method of claim 12, wherein the one or more potential polluters are identified using one or more of image recognition, such as automatic number plate recognition, audio recognition, and artificial intelligence.
14. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising: prompting the user associated with the terminal to input, at the terminal, contextual information about the pollution event; receiving the contextual information from the terminal; and updating the pollution event report to include the contextual information.
15. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the terminal to which the at least a portion of the pollution event report is sent is one of a predefined list of terminals associated with a predefined list of users associated with the site.
16. (Original) The method of claim 15, wherein the terminal is selected from the predefined list of terminals such that it is a terminal associated with a user who is present at the site; wherein optionally the user who is present at the site is determined based on one or more of: facial recognition performed on images taken from the site; a predefined schedule of users at the site; an electronic logbook of users at the site; and a detection of a terminal that is associated with the user at the site.
17. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the terminal is a mobile phone or device capable of receiving an SMS message, and wherein the at least a portion of the pollution event report is sent to the terminal as an SMS message.
18. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1 wherein the at least a portion of the pollution event report comprises some or all of the audio and/or image data.
19. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving environmental data corresponding to the time of the pollution event; wherein the pollution event report includes the environmental data; and wherein optionally the method further comprises determining whether the environmental data was likely to have contributed to the pollution event or not; wherein the pollution event report includes the determination of whether the environmental data was likely to have contributed to the pollution event or not.
20. (Original) The method of claim 19, wherein the environmental data is environmental data reflective of a geographical region within which the site is located; wherein optionally the geographic region is an administrative region, a city, a borough, a county, a state, a post code area, or a ZIP code area.
21. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 19, wherein the environmental data includes weather data; wherein optionally the weather data includes one or more of wind speed and/or direction, precipitation type and/or amount, air quality, dust or particulate matter concentration.
22. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a mitigation action based on the generated pollution event report.
23. (Currently Amended) A computer program that, when executed on one or more computers, causes the one or more computers to perform a method comprising:
receiving pollutant data in respect of a pollutant measured at a site;
determining, based on the pollutant data, that a pollution event has occurred at the site;
receiving, based on the determination that a pollution event has occurred at the site, audio and/or image data captured at the site;
generating a pollution event report including an association between the pollution event and the audio and/or image data;
and sending, to a terminal, at least a portion of the pollution event report, the terminal being associated with a user associated with the site.
24. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program that, when executed on one or more computers, causes the one or more computers to perform a method comprising:
receiving pollutant data in respect of a pollutant measured at a site;
determining, based on the pollutant data, that a pollution event has occurred at the site;
receiving, based on the determination that a pollution event has occurred at the site, audio and/or image data captured at the site;
generating a pollution event report including an association between the pollution event and the audio and/or image data;
and sending, to a terminal, at least a portion of the pollution event report, the terminal being associated with a user associated with the site.
25. (Currently Amended) A system comprising:
a pollution sensor configured to collect pollutant data in respect of a pollutant at a site;
an audio and/or image data sensor configured to capture audio and/or image da ta at the site;
and one or more computers configured to perform a method comprising:
receiving pollutant data in respect of a pollutant measured at a site;
determining, based on the pollutant data, that a pollution event has occurred at the site receiving, based on the determination that a pollution event has occurred at the site, audio and/or image data captured at the site;
generating a pollution event report including an association between the pollution event and the audio and/or image data;
and sending, to a terminal, at least a portion of the pollution event report, the terminal being associated with a user associated with the site.
Examiner notes with respect to the below analysis, the claims recite many limitations like “optionally”, “such as”, and “maybe” that are indefinite, as its unclear as to whether or not these limitations are required to be performed. Therefore while not necessarily required to be performed, the Examiner has interpreted them as if they were required in the efforts of compact prosecution (additionally see, 112 second/b rejections above).
As per claim 1, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including receiving data, determining a pollution event has occurred, receiving image or audio data, generating a pollution event report, and sending the report to another user. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that these certain human activities are “computer” implemented, and information is being sent to a user “terminal” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the additional limitations provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further the additional elements in the claims that these certain human activities are “computer” implemented, and information is being sent to a user “terminal” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 2, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including determining a pollutant event has occurred based on a threshold. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 3, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including describing the threshold. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 4, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including the type of pollutant and the optional measurements. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 5, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including obtaining a baseline level of a pollutant and comparing the baselined level to a measured pollutant level. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 6, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including describing the baseline level. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 7, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including the pollution event lasts for a predetermined duration starting from when the pollution event is determined to have occurred and that a further pollution event cannot occur within the a certain predetermined duration and the duration is specific time measurements like minutes, hours, etc. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 8, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including describing the pollution event retrospectively begins a predefined period before the pollution event is determined to have occurred and the duration is specific measurements like minutes, hours, etc. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 9, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including describing the predetermined duration and predetermined period is different for different pollutants. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 10, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including describing the type of received audio or image data, and that is it is received in response to a determination of a pollution event. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above as broadly recited in the claims.
As per claim 11, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including capturing and storing image and audio data for a predetermine period of time and deleting it if no pollution event is determined to have occurred within a period of time. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above as broadly recited in the claims.
As per claim 12, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including identifying from audio or image data one or more polluters, including it in the reports and describing the type of polluters. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements in that claims beyond those discussed above.
As per claim 13, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including identifying from audio or image data one or more polluters. This is part of the abstract idea.
The additional elements that these human activities are performed by “automatic plate recognition or artificial intelligence” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the additional limitations provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further the additional elements that the claims these certain human activities are by “automatic plate recognition or artificial intelligence” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 14, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including prompting the user to input contextual information associated with a pollution event and updating the report to include the contextual information. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the user inputs input information into a “terminal” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 15, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including sending the reports to one of a set of users associated with a predefined list of users associated with the site. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the report is sent to a user via a “terminal” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 16, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including sending the reports to one of a set of users associated with a predefined list of users associated with the site and identifying a user who is determined based on analysis like an log book, comparing images taken at a site, a predefined schedule of users at a site, and detection of a user at a site. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that the report is sent to a user via a “terminal” merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
The additional elements that identifying a user is done through “facial recognition”, “electronic” logbook, or detection of a “terminal” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the additional limitations provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further the additional elements in the claims that these certain human activities of identifying a user is done through “facial recognition”, “electronic” logbook, or detection of “a terminal” merely results merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 17, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including sending a report to a user. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that a user includes a “terminal like a mobile phone or device” and reports are sent via “SMS” message merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the additional limitations provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further the additional elements in the claims that these certain human activities of providing a report to a user instead recite being performed by “terminal like a mobile phone or device” and the reports are sent via “SMS” message merely results merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 18, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including a report including audio and or image data. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
As per claim 19, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including receiving environmental data corresponding to the time of the pollution event and optionally determining whether the environmental data was likely to have contributed to the pollution event or not and wherein the pollution report includes the determination of whether or not the environmental data contributed to the pollution event or not. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 20, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including the environmental data is associated with a geographic region. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
As per claim 21, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including the environmental data is associated with weather data. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
As per claim 22, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including determining a mitigation action based on the report. This is part of the abstract idea. There are no additional elements beyond the abstract idea.
As per claim 23, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including receiving data, determining a pollution event has occurred, receiving image or audio data, generating a pollution event report, and sending the report to another user. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that these certain human activities are performed by “ a computer program that, when executed on one or more computers, causes that one or more computers to perform the method comprising”, and information is being sent to a user “terminal” merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the additional limitations provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further the additional elements in the claims that these certain human activities are being performed by “ a computer program that, when executed on one or more computers, causes that one or more computers to perform the method comprising”, and information is being sent to a user “terminal” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
It is further noted that this claim is not in one of the statutory categories but has been interpreted as if it was, in the efforts of compact prosecution with respect to this rejection. See the additional 101 rejection below with respect to software per se.
As per claim 24, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including receiving data, determining a pollution event has occurred, receiving image or audio data, generating a pollution event report, and sending the report to another user. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that these certain human activities are performed by “ a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program that when executed on one or more computers causes the one or more computers to”, and information is being sent to a user “terminal” merely results in apply it. Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the additional limitations provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further the additional elements in the claims that these certain human activities are being performed by “ a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program that when executed on one or more computers causes the one or more computers to””, and information is being sent to a user “terminal” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 25, the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activities including receiving data, determining a pollution event has occurred, receiving image or audio data, generating a pollution event report, and sending the report to another user. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that these certain human activities are performed by “a pollution sensor”, “an audio and image data sensor”, “one or more computers” and information is being sent to a user “terminal” merely results in apply it.
Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the additional limitations provide only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it.
Further the additional elements in the claims that these certain human activities are being performed by “a pollution sensor”, “an audio and image data sensor”, and “one or more computers”, information is being sent to a user “terminal” merely results in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) And (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
2. Secondly, Regarding claim(s) 23, the Applicant recites a computer program that, when executed one or more computers, causes the one or more computers to perform a method. However, the Applicant has failed to properly define the physical components (i.e. a computer processor, hardware, etc.) of such a system in the claim recitation. It is noted that the “one or more computers” are not positively recited as part of the claim. Accordingly, the Examiner is interpreting such recitations as computer code, per se. Indeed, products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as computer program, per se, (often referred to as “software per se”) are not eligible for patent protection (see MPEP 2106.03). If Applicant were to amended claim 23 to positively recite a physical component, such as a processor or computer (see paragraph 0144 of Applicant’s specification as filed) the 101 rejection would be withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 10, 14-16, 18, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Poornachandran et al. (United States Patent Number: US 10,043,376).
As per claim 1, Poornachandran et al teaches A computer implemented method of generating a pollution event report, the method comprising: (see column 2 lines 18-34 and column3 lines 64- column 4 lines 4, Examiner’s note: classifying images and sounds to determine toxins/pollution and providing a notification before consuming fish from a lake).
receiving pollutant data in respect of a pollutant measured at a site; determining, based on the pollutant data, that a pollution event has occurred at the site ; (see column 2 lines 5-34, Examiner’s note: teaches using machine learning to classify images or audio as different types of dangers like toxins/pollution).
receiving, based on the determination that a pollution event has occurred at the site, audio and/or image data captured at the site; generating a pollution event report including an association between the pollution event and the audio and/or image data; and sending, to a terminal, at least a portion of the pollution event report, the terminal being associated with a user associated with the site (see column 3 lines 3 lines 55- column 4 lines 4 and column 6 lines 12-25, Examiner’s note: teaches taking a picture of a lake and being provided a notification based on previous determinations about the lake like no fishing, further teaches including reputation scores based on previous determinations).
As per claim 2, Poornachandran et al teaches
wherein a pollution event is determined to have occurred when the pollutant is measured to have breached a threshold level (see column 3 lines 60-61, Examiner’s note: based on governmental data indicating high levels of pollutions, toxins or allergens).
As per claim 3, Poornachandran et al teaches
wherein the threshold level is based on at least one or more of the pollutant, the time of day, the day of the week, or the time in the year. (see column 3 lines 60-61, Examiner’s note: based on governmental data indicating high levels of pollutions, toxins or allergens).
As per claim 10, Poornachandran et al teaches
wherein the audio and/or image data includes one or more of a photograph, a thermal image, an acoustic image, a video clip, and an audio clip; (see column 2 lines 18-34, Examiner’s note: sounds and images).
and/or wherein the audio and/or image data is captured in response to the determination that a pollution event has occurred. (see column 2 lines 15-31 and column 3 lines 55-62, Examiner’s note: collecting hazard input in response to known conditions where a type of condition can be toxins/pollution (see column 2 lines 15-31). Further teaches using the determinations to make a determination about the image (see column 3 lines 55-62).
As per claim 14, Poornachandran et al teaches
further comprising: prompting the user associated with the terminal to input, at the terminal, contextual information about the pollution event; receiving the contextual information from the terminal; and updating the pollution event report to include the contextual information (see column 3 lines 7-15 and 5 lines 20-35, Examiner’s note: receiving feedback to update information over time).
As per claim 15, Poornachandran et al teaches
wherein the terminal to which the at least a portion of the pollution event report is sent is one of a predefined list of terminals associated with a predefined list of users associated with the site (see column 3 lines 7-15 and column 3 lines 50- column 4 lines 7, Examiner’s note: sending a response to a user taking a picture at a site where this feedback may be used for future users taking a picture at a site).
As per claim 16, Poornachandran et al teaches
wherein the terminal is selected from the predefined list of terminals such that it is a terminal associated with a user who is present at the site; wherein optionally the user who is present at the site is determined based on one or more of: facial recognition performed on images taken from the site; a predefined schedule of users at the site; an electronic logbook of users at the site; and a detection of a terminal that is associated with the user at the site. (see column 3 lines 7-15 and column 3 lines 50- column 4 lines 7, Examiner’s note: sending a response to a user taking a picture at a site where this feedback may be used for future users taking a picture at a site. It is noted the limitation that recites optionally is not required by the claims but has been shown here in the efforts of compact prosecution).
As per claim 18, Poornachandran et al teaches
wherein the at least a portion of the pollution event report comprises some or all of the audio and/or image data (see column 3 lines 55- column 4 lines 5, Examiner’s note: sign that says no fishing over the image of the lake).
As per claim 22, Poornachandran et al teaches
further comprising determining a mitigation action based on the generated pollution event report (see column 3 lines 55- column 4 lines 5, Examiner’s note: no fishing and prior to individuals consuming fish from the lake).
As per claim 23, Poornachandran et al teaches A computer program that, when executed on one or more computers, causes the one or more computers to perform a method comprising: (see column 4 lines 60- column 5 lines 5, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform functions).
receiving pollutant data in respect of a pollutant measured at a site; determining, based on the pollutant data, that a pollution event has occurred at the site; (see column 2 lines 5-34, Examiner’s note; teaches using machine learning to classify images or audio as different types of dangers like toxins/pollution).
receiving, based on the determination that a pollution event has occurred at the site, audio and/or image data captured at the site; generating a pollution event report including an association between the pollution event and the audio and/or image data; and sending, to a terminal, at least a portion of the pollution event report, the terminal being associated with a user associated with the site. (see column 3 lines 3 lines 55- column 4 lines 4 and column 6 lines 12-25, Examiner’s note: teaches taking a picture of a lake and being provided a notification based on previous determinations about the lake like no fishing, further teaches including reputation scores based on previous determinations).
As per claim 24, Poornachandran et al teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer program that, when executed on one or more computers, causes the one or more computers to perform a method comprising: (see column 4 lines 60- column 5 lines 5, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform functions).
receiving pollutant data in respect of a pollutant measured at a site; determining, based on the pollutant data, that a pollution event has occurred at the site; (see column 2 lines 5-34, Examiner’s note: teaches using machine learning to classify images or audio as different types of dangers like toxins/pollution).
receiving, based on the determination that a pollution event has occurred at the site, audio and/or image data captured at the site; generating a pollution event report including an association between the pollution event and the audio and/or image data; and sending, to a terminal, at least a portion of the pollution event report, the terminal being associated with a user associated with the site. (see column 3 lines 3 lines 55- column 4 lines 4, and column 6 lines 12-25, Examiner’s note: teaches taking a picture of a lake and being provided a notification based on previous determinations about the lake like no fishing, further teaches including reputation scores based on previous determinations).
As per claim 25, Poornachandran et al teaches A system comprising: (see abstract, Examiner’s note: system).
a pollution sensor configured to collect pollutant data in respect of a pollutant at a site; an audio and/or image data sensor configured to capture audio and/or image da ta at the site; (see column 1 lines 50- column 2 lines 10 and column 2 lines 31, Examiner’s note: receiving information from multiple different devices including through various sensors in order to determine pollution/toxins, these can include audio sensors, capture sensors, and environmental sensors).
and one or more computers configured to perform a method comprising: (see column 6 lines 43-45m, Examiner’s note: instructions excited by a processor cause a system to perform a method).
receiving pollutant data in respect of a pollutant measured at a site; determining, based on the pollutant data, that a pollution event has occurred at the site(see column 2 lines 5-34, Examiner’s note; teaches using machine learning to classify images or audio as different types of dangers like toxins/pollution).
receiving, based on the determination that a pollution event has occurred at the site, audio and/or image data captured at the site; generating a pollution event report including an association between the pollution event and the audio and/or image data; and sending, to a terminal, at least a portion of the pollution event report, the terminal being associated with a user associated (see column 3 lines 3 lines 55- column 4 lines 4 and column 6 lines 12-25, Examiner’s note: teaches taking a picture of a lake and being provided a notification based on previous determinations about the lake like no fishing, further teaches including reputation scores based on previous determinations).
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 12-13, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poornachandran et al (United States Patent Number: US 10,043,376) further in view of Khedekar (United States Patent Number: US 11,360,236).
As per claim 4, Poornachandran et al teaches does not expressly teach wherein the pollutant may be one or more of noise, light, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, one or more nitrous oxides, particulate matter; wherein optionally the particulate matter has diameters less than 10 µm, less than 4 µm, less than 2.5
µ
m, or less than 1 µm.
However, Khedekar et al. which is in the art of monitoring emissions and air pollutant levels within an area (see abstract) teaches wherein the pollutant may be one or more of noise, light, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, one or more nitrous oxides, particulate matter; wherein optionally the particulate matter has diameters less than 10 µm, less than 4 µm, less than 2.5
µ
m, or less than 1 µm (see column 2 lines 45-55, Examiner’s note: teaches carbon dioxide, it is noted that after the limitation optionally none is of the rest is required by the claims, however Khedekar teaches less than a 10 micrometer diameter in the efforts of compact prosecution).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Khedekar et al. with the motivation of including known pollutions and measurement (see Khedekar et al. column 2 lines 45-55), when providing users with information related to pollutions in areas is known (see Poornachandran et al column 3 lines 60- column 4 liens 5 and column 3 lines 20-40).
As per claim 5, Poornachandran et al teaches does not expressly teach further comprising obtaining a baseline level of the pollutant; wherein the pollution event report includes a comparison of the baseline level of the pollutant with the measured pollutant level.
However, Khedekar et al. which is in the art of monitoring emissions and air pollutant levels within an area (see abstract) teaches further comprising obtaining a baseline level of the pollutant; wherein the pollution event report includes a comparison of the baseline level of the pollutant with the measured pollutant level (see column 6 lines 63-67, Examiner’s note: notices that emission levels in certain neighborhoods are higher than regulatory safety limits).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Khedekar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to tell a user that pollution is higher than a safety limit (see Khedekar et al. column 6 lines 63-67), when telling a user a lake may be hazardous based on high levels of pollution is known (See Poornachandran et al column 3 lines 55-65).
As per claim 12, Poornachandran et al teaches does not expressly teach
comprising identifying, from the received audio and/or image data, one or more potential polluters; wherein the pollution event reports includes the one or more identified potential polluters; and wherein optionally the one or more potential polluters includes one or more vehicles, pieces of machinery, pieces of equipment, and people.
However, Khedekar et al. which is in the art of monitoring emissions and air pollutant levels within an area (see abstract) teaches comprising identifying, from the received audio and/or image data, one or more potential polluters; wherein the pollution event reports includes the one or more identified potential polluters; and wherein optionally the one or more potential polluters includes one or more vehicles, pieces of machinery, pieces of equipment, and people (see column 5 lines 5-15, Examiner’s note: teaches determining pollutant sources where one may be vehicle emissions. It is noted that the limitation is not required by the claim based on the recitation of optionally however Khedekar et al. teaches this as shown above in the efforts of compact prosecution).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Khedekar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to identify what is causing the pollution (see Khedekar et al. column 5 lines 5-15), when providing a user with information regarding the pollution is known (see Poornachandran et al column 3 lines 55- column 4 lines 5)
As per claim 13, Poornachandran et al teaches does not expressly teach wherein the one or more potential polluters are identified using one or more of image recognition, such as automatic number plate recognition, audio recognition, and artificial intelligence.
However, Khedekar et al. which is in the art of monitoring emissions and air pollutant levels within an area (see abstract) teaches wherein the one or more potential polluters are identified using one or more of image recognition, such as automatic number plate recognition, audio recognition, and artificial intelligence (see column 5 lines 5-15, Examiner’s note: teaches determining pollutant sources where one may be vehicle emissions where this is determined via object detect algorithms. It is noted this limitation is not actually required by the claim with the use of language “such as” however in the efforts of compact prosecution Khedekar et al. has been shown to teach this).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Khedekar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to identify what is causing the pollution through machine learning (see Khedekar et al. column 5 lines 5-15), when providing a user with information regarding the pollution through machine learning is known (see Poornachandran et al column 3 lines 55- column 4 lines 5 and column 2 lines 18-35)
As per claim 17, Poornachandran et al teaches
wherein the terminal is a mobile phone or device capable of receiving an wireless message, and wherein the at least a portion of the pollution event report is sent to the terminal as an wireless message (see column 5 lines 60-62, Examiner’s note: personalized warning sent via a wireless communication link to a client device).
Poornachandran et al teaches does not expressly teach communicating via SMS.
However, Khedekar et al. which is in the art of monitoring emissions and air pollutant levels within an area (see abstract) teaches communicating via SMS (see column5 lines 64-67, Examiner’s note: send real time alert notifications to relevant third parties for example in the form of SMS and email communications).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Khedekar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to communicate over a known type of wireless communication (see Khedekar et al. column 5 lines 64-67), when communicating over a wireless communication is known (see Poornachandran et al. column 5 lines 60-62).
As per claim 19, Poornachandran et al teaches does not expressly teach further comprising receiving environmental data corresponding to the time of the pollution event; wherein the pollution event report includes the environmental data; and wherein optionally the method further comprises determining whether the environmental data was likely to have contributed to the pollution event or not; wherein the pollution event report includes the determination of whether the environmental data was likely to have contributed to the pollution event or not.
However, Khedekar et al. which is in the art of monitoring emissions and air pollutant levels within an area (see abstract) teaches further comprising receiving environmental data corresponding to the time of the pollution event; wherein the pollution event report includes the environmental data; and wherein optionally the method further comprises determining whether the environmental data was likely to have contributed to the pollution event or not; wherein the pollution event report includes the determination of whether the environmental data was likely to have contributed to the pollution event or not (see column 5 lines 5-15 and column 5 lines 55-62, Examiner’s note: limitations that recite the limitations optionally are not required by the claim. However, Khedar et al. teaches providing captured relevant pollution scores for generating alerts in the efforts of compact prosecution).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Khedekar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to provide relevant information related to pollution sources to a user (see Khedekar et al. column 5 lines 5-15 and column 5 lines 55-62), when determining an area is polluted and providing information related to that pollution to a user is known (see Poornachandran et al column 3 lines 55- column 4 lines 3 and column 2 lines 18-35)
As per claim 20, Poornachandran et al does not expressly teach wherein the environmental data is environmental data reflective of a geographical region within which the site is located; wherein optionally the geographic region is an administrative region, a city, a borough, a county, a state, a post code area, or a ZIP code area.
However, Khedekar et al. which is in the art of monitoring emissions and air pollutant levels within an area (see abstract) teaches wherein the environmental data is environmental data reflective of a geographical region within which the site is located; wherein optionally the geographic region is an administrative region, a city, a borough, a county, a state, a post code area, or a ZIP code area (see column 4 lines 55-60 and column 6 lines 65-67, Examiner’s note: GPS module and location tracking for pollutant sources, and providing recommendations for certain neighborhoods which could be an administrative region. It is noted that the recitation of optionally makes the limitation not required to be performed however as shown above Khedekar et al. teaches this as detailed above in the efforts of compact prosecution).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Khedekar et al. with the motivation of providing a known way to provide location based information to users (see Khedekar et al. column 4 lines 55-60 and column 6 lines 65-67), when providing information based on location is known (see Poornachandran et al column 3 lines 55- column 4 lines 5).
As per claim 21, Poornachandran et al does not expressly teach wherein the environmental data includes weather data; wherein optionally the weather data includes one or more of wind speed and/or direction, precipitation type and/or amount, air quality, dust or particulate matter concentration.
However, Khedekar et al. which is in the art of monitoring emissions and air pollutant levels within an area (see abstract) teaches wherein the environmental data includes weather data; wherein optionally the weather data includes one or more of wind speed and/or direction, precipitation type and/or amount, air quality, dust or particulate matter concentration (see column 2 lines 30-35, column 4 lines 38-40, Examiner’s note: air quality mapping and emissions. It is noted that the recitation of optionally makes the limitation not required to be performed however as shown above Khedekar et al. teaches this as detailed above in the efforts of compact prosecution).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Khedekar et al. with the motivation of providing a way to determine information related to specific types of pollution (see Khedekar et al. column 2 lines 30-35, column 4 lines 38-40), when providing information related to toxins and pollutions at a specific location is known (see Poornachandran et al column 2 lines 30-32 and column 3 lines 60- column 4 line 2)
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poornachandran et al (United States Patent Number: US 10,043,376) further in view of Khedekar (United States Patent Number: US 11,360,236) further in view of Krafft (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2016/0117372).
As per claim 6, Poornachandran et al in view of Khedekar does not expressly teach wherein the baseline level is a historic average for a corresponding time period to the time at which the pollution event is determined to occur; wherein optionally the corresponding time period is one or more of a time of day, a day of the week, and a day of the month.
However, Krafft which is in the art of avoiding undesirable outdoor conditions (see abstract) teaches wherein the baseline level is a historic average for a corresponding time period to the time at which the pollution event is determined to occur; wherein optionally the corresponding time period is one or more of a time of day, a day of the week, and a day of the month (see paragraph 0088, 0095, 0127, 0129, Examiner’s note: can be performed for multiple types of air quality pollutions like pollen (See paragraph 0088) and teaches comparing users exposures to other times and teaches providing average pollen information and suggested lowest pollen times. It is noted that the limitations that recite optionally are not required to be performed by the claim however in the efforts of compact prosecution, they have been shown as detailed above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al further in view of Khedekar with the aforementioned teachings from Krafft with the motivation of providing a way to provide information when a pollution is high or low at a specific time (see Krafft paragraphs 0088, 0095, 0127, and 0129), when providing information related to a pollution being high and these can change over time is known (see Poornachandran et al column 3 lines 55-65 and column 2 lines 20-55)
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poornachandran et al (United States Patent Number: US 10,043,376) further in view of Krafft (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2016/0117372).
As per claim 7, Poornachandran et al does not expressly teach wherein the pollution event lasts for a predetermined duration starting from when the pollution event is determined to have occurred; wherein further pollution events based on the same pollutant cannot occur within the predetermined duration; and wherein optionally the predetermined duration is 15 minutes, half an hour, one hour, or two hours.
However, Krafft which is in the art of avoiding undesirable outdoor conditions (see abstract) teaches wherein the pollution event lasts for a predetermined duration starting from when the pollution event is determined to have occurred; wherein further pollution events based on the same pollutant cannot occur within the predetermined duration; and wherein optionally the predetermined duration is 15 minutes, half an hour, one hour, or two hours (see paragraph 0115, 0117, 0129, 0130, and Figure 1A, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing a timeframe pollution event to other timeframes, therefore further events cannot occur within the predetermined duration. Here teaches different timeframes like 1 hr, 2 hr, or user selected where the user could select the various options recited above. It is noted that the limitations that recite optionally are not required to be performed by the claim however in the efforts of compact prosecution, they have been shown as detailed above)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Krafft with the motivation of providing a way to provide information related to pollution at different time frames (see Krafft paragraphs 0115, 0117, 0129, 0130), when providing information related to a pollution being high and these can change over time is known (see Poornachandran et al column 3 lines 55-65 and column 2 lines 20-55)
As per claim 8, Poornachandran et al does not expressly teach wherein the pollution event retrospectively begins a predefined period before the pollution event is determined to have occurred; and wherein optionally the predetermined duration is 15 minutes, half an hour, one hour, or two hours.
However, Krafft which is in the art of avoiding undesirable outdoor conditions (see abstract) teaches wherein the pollution event retrospectively begins a predefined period before the pollution event is determined to have occurred; and wherein optionally the predetermined duration is 15 minutes, half an hour, one hour, or two hours(see paragraph 0115, 0117, 0129, 0130, and Figure 1A, Examiner’s note: teaches comparing a timeframe pollution event to other timeframes, therefore a time period can be before the event. Here teaches different timeframes like 1 hr, 2 hr, or user selected where the user could select the various options recited above. It is noted that the limitations that recite optionally are not required to be performed by the claim however in the efforts of compact prosecution, they have been shown as detailed above)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Krafft with the motivation of providing a way to provide information related to pollution at different time frames (see Krafft paragraphs 0115, 0117, 0129, 0130), when providing information related to a pollution being high and these can change over time is known (see Poornachandran et al column 3 lines 55-65 and column 2 lines 20-55)
As per claim 9, Poornachandran et al does not expressly teach wherein the predetermined duration and/or the predefined period is different for different pollutants.
However, Krafft which is in the art of avoiding undesirable outdoor conditions (see abstract) teaches wherein the predetermined duration and/or the predefined period is different for different pollutants (see paragraph 0088, 0127, 0129, and 0132, Examiner’s note; teaches different pollutions, like pollen, smoke, dust etc. (see paragraph 0088) and teaches the selected time frame selected by a user (See paragraph 0129 and 0132), so a user or different users could select different durations or period for different pollutants).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Krafft with the motivation of providing a way to provide information related to different pollution at different time frames to different users (see Krafft paragraphs 0115, 0117, 0129, 0130), when providing information related to a pollution being high and these can change over time is known (see Poornachandran et al column 3 lines 55-65, column 2 lines 20-55).
17. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poornachandran et al (United States Patent Number: US 10,043,376) further in view of Kimmel (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2015/0213702).
As per claim 11, Poornachandran et al teaches
wherein the audio and/or image data is captured on a continuous basis and stored for a predetermined period of time (see column 2 lines 18-22 and column 7 lines 17-22, Examiner’s note: aggregation policies may specify a sampling intervals for the devices on a per device or per group basis (see column 2 lines 18-22). Further teaches memory containing instructions implements the method (see column7 lines 17-22)).
after which it is deleted (see column 7 lines 42-50, Examiner’s note: teaches retiring code after completion).
And determining a pollution event (see column 3 lines 55-column 4 lines 3, Examiner’s note: determining no fishing action based on high level of pollutions).
Poornachandran et al does not expressly teach deleting if no event is determined to have occurred within the predetermined period of time; wherein optionally the predetermined period of time is 15 minutes, half an hour, or one hour.
However, Kimmel which is in the art of using images to determine information (see abstract) teaches deleting if no event is determined to have occurred within the predetermined period of time; wherein optionally the predetermined period of time is 15 minutes, half an hour, or one hour (see paragraphs 0018 and 0023, Examiner’s note: purging images like over 15 mins, 1 hour, 30 mins, and allowing retention images over a certain monitoring period for the verification or further investigation of a detected behavior. It is noted that the limitations that recite optionally are not required to be performed by the claim however in the efforts of compact prosecution, they have been shown as detailed above).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Poornachandran et al with the aforementioned teachings from Kimmel with the motivation of providing a way to save storage by pursing files after a certain period of time while retaining those that you may further need (see Kimmel paragraphs 0018 and 0023), when receiving numerous amounts of images and audio from various devices for data collection is known (see Poornachandran et al column 2 lines 5-35).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shao et al. (United States Patent Number: US 11,776, 081) teaches a system for predicting air quality in cities based on an internet of things (see abstract)
Wong Web Service and a Mobile App for Reporting Site Pollution and Other Features 2021 teaches an app for reporting pollution (see pages 117-120)
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626