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
1. This action is responsive to: an original application filed on 10 October 2024 with acknowledgement that this application is a continuation of provisional application with a filing date of 13 October 2023.
2. Claims 1-23 are currently pending. Claims 1, 12, and 20, are independent claims.
3. The IDS submitted on 17 March 2025 has been considered.
Specification
4. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR DECTECTING ACTIVE THREATS TO PROTECT LIVES AND PROPERTY
5. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it does not contain enough details to ascertain the concept of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner notes, according to MPEP § 608.01(b), “The content of a patent abstract should be such as to enable the reader thereof, regardless of his or her degree of familiarity with patent documents, to determine quickly from a cursory inspection of the abstract the nature and gist of the technical disclosure and that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains.” According to the Applicant’s disclosure see paragraphs 2-4, 7, 9-10, 12, 20, 50-51, 59, and 68-72. One of the threats the applicant’s invention aims to detect is “active shooter(s)” as well as guns, weapons, firearms, or extreme weather events. The Abstract filed is directed to sensing modules, however no indication is provided what is being sensed as well as what kind of threats are being detected. The Examiner suggests that some details from paragraphs 7, 9-10, 51-55, and 59 be incorporated into the Abstract. Appropriate Correction Required.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the claim contains the phrase “a sensing module located proximate a coverage zone”. It appears the preposition “to” is missing from the claim. Perhaps the phrase should be “a sensing module located proximate to a coverage zone”. In addition, the claim contains the phrase “the threat signal includes at least one of the threat signal and the threat context”. Perhaps the limitation should be amended to indicate ““the threat signal includes at least one of the threat subject and the threat context” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-23 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. The independent claims as well as some of the dependent contain the phrase “at least one sensor configured to capture environmental data” or “analyze the environmental data” or “delete the environmental data” or “raw environmental data”. The Examiner notes the phrases are confusing because sensors that detect environmental data are understood in the art as sensors that detect temperature, humidity, air quality, light, sound, or soil moisture. The majority of the invention appears to be directed to detecting potential mass shootings for which visual data and audio data collected by the sensors is used. This visual data or audio data does not equate to “environmental data”. It is suggested the phrase be amended so the limitation indicates: “at least one sensor configured to capture 802a uses one or more sensors to monitor the environment and produce sensor data, such as image data, audio data, heat data, and the like” and “At 902, if there is new environmental data, a threat processor ingests the environmental data and processes the environment data from the sensing module at 904”. However, the specification does not adequately redefine the term “environmental data”. Appropriate Correction is required.
9. Claim 1 is 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. The independent claims contain the phrase “a threat notification module including remotely coupled to the sensing module over a communication network”. The Examiner notes the phrase is confusing because of the words “remotely coupled” do not make sense. It is suggested the phrase be amended so the limitation indicates: “a threat notification module in communication with a remote sensing module”. Appropriate Correction is required.
10. To expedite a complete examination of the instant application the claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 (nonstatutory) as well as 35 U.S.C. 112 above are further rejected as set forth below in anticipation of applicant amending these claims to overcome the above rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 11, 19, and 23, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. In addition the Applicant needs to overcome the above objections and 112 rejections.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
12. 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 of this title, 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.
13. Claims 1-6, 9-10, 12-15, 18, and 20-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0258880 (hereinafter Smith) included in the IDS and documented in the International Search Report in view of Bingham et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0070772 (hereinafter ‘772).
As to independent claim 1, “A threat detection system comprising: a sensing module located proximate a coverage zone, the sensing module including: at least one sensor configured to capture environmental data relating to the coverage zone and generate sensor data” is taught in Smith paragraphs 9-10, 37, and 63;
“and a threat notification module including remotely coupled to the sensing module over a communications network and including: a threat server configured to receive the threat signal from the sensing module, analyze one or more threat signals to determine if a valid threat exists, and generate an alarm signal when a valid threat is determined to exist” is shown in Smith Figures 2, 9, paragraphs 38-39, 45, and 54;
“and a notification server configured to receive the alarm signal from the threat server, generate a threat notification based on the alarm signal and transmit the threat notification to at least one notification endpoint” is disclosed in Smith in paragraphs 77, 79, 81 and 105;
Although Smith teaches in paragraph 40 the network 10 can be configured with various sensors to provide identification of weapons of mass destruction, known terrorist and threat behavior patterns, since Smith does not explicitly teach the threat processor is configured to analyze the sensor data and detect at least one of a threat subject, wherein the threat subject and/or threat context is defined by the Applicant’s disclosure equating to number of persons or weapon count it could be argued the following is not explicitly taught in Smith:
“and a threat processor configured to analyze the sensor data and detect at least one of a threat subject and/or threat context in the coverage zone based on the sensor data and generate a threat signal based on detecting the threat subject or threat context, wherein the threat signal includes at least one of the threat signal and the threat context” however ‘772 teaches the image data collected from cameras can be analyzed to detect firearms and people as well as notifying emergency responders as well as owners and occupants in paragraphs 50-52, 76-80, and 90;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of techniques, apparatus, and systems for information collecting and decision making based on networks of sensors and communications nodes for security monitoring and warning taught in Smith to include a means to specifically identify the threat subject and/or threat context. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to improve the existing monitoring systems to provide up to date status information to users, see ‘772 paragraphs 3-7.
As to dependent claim 2, “The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of: an image sensor, an acoustic sensor, an infrared sensor, a radar sensor, and a lidar sensor” is taught in Smith Figure 8, paragraphs 63-64, and 66.
As to dependent claim 3, “The system of claim 1, wherein the threat processor comprises: a neural core configured to analyze the environmental data using one or more neural networks; and a network core configured to communicate the threat signal to the threat server” is shown in Smith Figure 9, paragraphs 41, 59, 61, and 77.
As to dependent claim 4, “The system of claim 1, wherein the threat server is further configured to: aggregate multiple threat signals from multiple sensing modules; determine a confidence level for a detected threat based on the aggregated threat signals” is disclosed in Smith Figures 1-3, 8-10, paragraphs 68, 89-90, 104, and 106.
As to dependent claim 5, “The system of claim 1, wherein the notification server is further configured to: determine a manner of notification based on the alarm signal; select one or more notification endpoints to receive the threat notification” is taught in Smith Figures 2, 9, paragraphs 33, 61, 77, 116, and 138.
As to dependent claim 6, “The system of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of sensing modules arranged in a mesh network, wherein the sensing modules are configured to communicate with each other and relay threat signals” is shown in Smith Figure 10, paragraphs 37, 54, and 72.
As to dependent claim 9, “The system of claim 1, wherein the threat server is configured to: maintain a database of sensing module locations; determine a location of a detected threat based on the sensing module location associated with a received threat signal” is disclosed in Smith Figures 2, 9, paragraphs 33, 43, 62-63, 69, 111, and 148.
As to dependent claim 10, “The system of claim 1, wherein the notification endpoint comprises at least one of: a mobile device, a web application, a public safety answering point, and a third-party integration” is taught in Smith Figures 2, 9-10, paragraphs 74, 77, and 157.
As to independent claim 12, “A method for detecting threats, comprising: capturing environmental data using at least one sensor of a sensing module” is taught in Smith paragraphs 9-10, 37, and 63;
“transmitting the threat signal to a threat server; analyzing, by the threat server, one or more threat signals to determine if a valid threat exists; generating an alarm signal if a valid threat is determined to exist; transmitting the alarm signal to a notification server” is shown in Smith Figures 2, 9, paragraphs 38-39, 45, and 54;
“generating, by the notification server, a threat notification based on the alarm signal; and transmitting the threat notification to at least one notification endpoint” is disclosed in Smith in paragraphs 77, 79, 81 and 105;Although Smith teaches in paragraph 40 the network 10 can be configured with various sensors to provide identification of weapons of mass destruction, known terrorist and threat behavior patters, since Smith does not explicitly teach the threat processor is configured to analyze the sensor data and detect at least one of a threat subject, wherein the threat subject and/or threat context is defined by the Applicant’s disclosure equating to number of persons or weapon count it could be argued the following is not explicitly taught in Smith:
“analyzing the environmental data using a threat processor to detect a threat subject or threat context; generating a threat signal based on detecting the threat subject or threat context” however ‘772 teaches the image data collected from cameras can be analyzed to detect firearms and people as well as notifying emergency responders as well as owners and occupants in paragraphs 50-52, 76-80, and 90;
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of techniques, apparatus, and systems for information collecting and decision making based on networks of sensors and communications nodes for security monitoring and warning taught in Smith to include a means to specifically identify the threat subject and/or threat context. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to improve the existing monitoring systems to provide up to date status information to users, see ‘772 paragraphs 3-7.
As to dependent claim 13, “The method of claim 12, further comprising: aggregating multiple threat signals from multiple sensing modules; and determining a confidence level for a detected threat based on the aggregated threat signals” is disclosed in Figures 1-3, 8-10, paragraphs 68, 89-90, 104, and 106.
As to dependent claim 14, “The method of claim 12, further comprising: determining a manner of notification based on the alarm signal; and selecting one or more notification endpoints to receive the threat notification” is taught in Smith Figures 2, 9, paragraphs 33, 61, 77, 116, and 138.
As to dependent claim 15, “The method of claim 12, further comprising: arranging a plurality of sensing modules in a mesh network; and relaying threat signals between the sensing modules” is shown in Smith Figure 10, paragraphs 37, 54, and 72.
As to dependent claim 18, “The method of claim 12, further comprising: maintaining a database of sensing module locations; and determining a location of a detected threat based on the sensing module location associated with a received threat signal” is disclosed in Smith Figures 2, 9, paragraphs 33, 43, 62-63, 69, 111, and 148.
As to independent claim 20, this claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that execute the method of claim 12; therefore, it is rejected along similar rationale.
14. Claims 7, 16, and 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0258880 (hereinafter Smith) included in the IDS and documented in the International Search Report in view of Bingham et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0070772 (hereinafter ‘772) in further view of Boykin et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0050800 (hereinafter ‘800), also included in the IDS and documented in the International Search Report.
As to dependent claim 7, the following is not explicitly taught in Smith and ‘772: “The system of claim 1, wherein the threat processor is configured to delete the environmental data after generating the threat signal however ‘800 teaches the camera device may be configured to continually capture data to be held in a buffer….data is automatically deleted (after a certain period of time) in paragraphs 101-103 and 192-193.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of techniques, apparatus, and systems for information collecting and decision making based on networks of sensors and communications nodes for security monitoring and warning taught in Smith and ‘772 to include a means to deleted data after generating the threat signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to free storage space so that more data can be recorded see ‘800 paragraphs 192-193.
As to dependent claim 16, “The method of claim 12, further comprising: deleting the environmental data after generating the threat signal” is taught in ‘800 paragraphs 101-103 and 192-193.
As to dependent claim 21, “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein the method further comprises: deleting the environmental data after generating the threat signal” is shown in ‘800 paragraphs 101-103 and 192-193.
15. Claims 8 17, and 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0258880 (hereinafter Smith) included in the IDS and documented in the International Search Report in view of Bingham et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0070772 (hereinafter ‘772) in further view of Samosseiko et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0247048 (hereinafter ‘048), also included in the IDS and documented in the International Search Report.
As to dependent claim 8, the following is not explicitly taught in Smith and ‘772: “The system of claim 1, wherein the threat signal comprises metadata about the detected threat subject or threat context without including raw environmental data” however ‘048 teaches a threat management system in which metadata can be added to filtered event data for reporting to a central threat management facility and this metadata can be utilized so that raw data can be stored separately (i.e. without including the raw data) in paragraphs 11, 131, 171, and 175-176.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of techniques, apparatus, and systems for information collecting and decision making based on networks of sensors and communications nodes for security monitoring and warning taught in Smith and ‘772 to include a means to include metadata without including the raw data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to send the key information regarding the detected threat first, while leaving the raw data available if needed see ‘048 paragraphs 175-177.
As to dependent claim 17, “The method of claim 12, wherein the threat signal comprises metadata about the detected threat subject or threat context without including raw environmental data” is taught in ‘048 paragraphs 11, 131, 171, and 175-176.
As to dependent claim 22, “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20, wherein the threat signal comprises metadata about the detected threat subject or threat context without including raw environmental data” is shown in ‘048 paragraphs 11, 131, 171, and 175-176.
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ergenbright et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0204109 is directed to a victiminitiated mitigation system that is capable of mitigating the effects of an Active Shooter in a facility.
Gersten U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0053394 is directed to a danger monitoring system that sends danger observation to a server.
Raz et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0080577 is directed to an emergency automated gunshot lockdown system, that detects gunshots and executes response actions such as notifying law enforcement of an active shooter, providing access control measures.
Sulzer et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0364468 is directed to an intelligent video surveillance system and method.
Abdel-Mottaleb et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0394938 is directed to an system and method for providing security analytics from surveillance systems using artificial intelligence.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELLEN C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3842. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Jeff Pwu can be reached at 571-272-6798. 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.
________________________________
/ELLEN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2433 5 February 2026