DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03-13-2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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) 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LASENBY (US Patent 5,510,772) in view of KADAM (US Pub. 2024/0412607) and BURES (US Pub. 2020/0322703).
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 16,
LASENBY teaches a method/corresponding system/processor executed instructions, the method comprising:
receiving a first alert from a first environmental condition detection device (5) based on detection of an environmental condition characteristic in proximity to the first environmental condition detection device (col.4:66-col. 5:6 teaches that a "camera views the space S and produces a succession of images of it. For each such sequence of images, the apparatus looks at all identified clusters and determines …If such a cluster with the required good-fits is found, this cluster is considered to represent a flame and an alarm is signaled."), wherein:
the first environmental condition detection device comprises a sensor to detect a magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic (col. 2:1-3 teaches, "According to the invention, there is provided a method of detecting flames within a monitored space… determining the magnitude of the average value of the intensity of rite radiation so as to produce a resultant set of the said average values". The system detects a magnitude of the environmental condition (fire/flame) by measuring the average value of the radiation intensity);
the first alert indicates a first magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic detected by the sensor (col. 2:55-60 teaches, " where K is a constant; and means for signaling the existence of a fire for any cluster of adjacent image parts for which the respective values of v and C fit the said relationship within predetermined limit values. ". This description can be interpreted as indicating a spatial magnitude or the physical scale of the fire based on the size and number of detected clusters.);
determining a first relative location of the environmental condition based on the location of the first environmental condition detection device (col. 1:34-56 teaches that the system divides the entire monitored space into a grid of individual "fixed points in space" that correspond to specific pixels or image parts in the camera's two-dimensional view. The apparatus performs its detection calculations independently for each image point. Because each point is tied to a known coordinate in the physical space, the system knows exactly where in the room each set of values originates, thus teaching the determination of a location as recited);
determining a first intensity value for the environmental condition based at least in part on the magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic indicated by the first alert (col. 9:4-35 teaches, "when pixel 29 is tested, it will pass Test A because the C values for the six adjacent pixels 30 to 35 will all have C values lying within the limits of Test A. Pixel 29 will thus be set to 1--if it also satisfies Test B, wherein Test B compares the C values of the pixels adjacent to each pixel under test to assess whether their respective intensity values increase in a direction corresponding to a flame (see FIG. 4), or whether they vary in some other way, not corresponding to a flame... " This description teaches a method for determining an intensity value (represented by variable C) and utilizing it to understand the magnitude (physical structure and direction) of the fire); and
generating a heatmap to represent the first relative location and first intensity value of the environmental condition (col. 7:52-col. 8:2 teaches that the camera produces a succession of images, each providing a matrix of 0 or 1 values for 'c' for each point. If a flame or other fluctuating radiation source is present, values of 'c' will change, reflecting these fluctuations. The average value of 'c' for each point across all images is calculated, resulting in a single "C-matrix" where each value, between 0 and 1, represents the "average progress variable. The disclosure describes producing a "resultant set of average values" where each value corresponds to a "particular point in each of the two-dimensional images." This disclosure names the resulting data structure as a "single matrix in C," which is the exact technical definition of a visualized data matrix which is interpreted as corresponding to a heatmap.)
Lasenby fails to expressly teach determining a location of the first environmental condition detection device.
KADAM teaches a computerized system and method for safety sensor activation within a location comprising:
receiving a first alert from a first environmental condition detection device (5) based on detection of an environmental condition characteristic in proximity to the first environmental condition detection device (at least [0006], [0007] and [0082] teach an emergency system which conducts analysis of fire conditions, air quality, and occupied locations to determine real-time and dynamic evacuation paths. The routes may be communicated via smoke detectors using visual, audible, or haptic outputs, with system components like air vents and sprinklers adjusted to increase the chances of a safe exit. Sensors will coordinate with emergency components such as door locks and sprinklers. The disclosure teaches that the system performs "advanced computational analysis" of variables like "thermal conditions" and "concentration of smoke" to trigger at least the sprinkler system (see [0006]). The sprinkler is therefore more than a standalone tool, and may be reasonably interpreted as serving as a form of alert to the detected environmental condition), wherein:
the first environmental condition detection device comprises a sensor to detect a magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic ([0032] and [0041] teach sensors 110, which can correspond to temperature sensors, cameras, glass break detectors, motion detectors, door and window contacts, heat and smoke detectors, carbon monoxide and/or carbon dioxide detectors, passive infrared sensors, time-of-flight sensors, and the like. Sensor 110 can be a smoke detector similar to smoke detector 102; [0058] teaches a Step 306, wherein engine 200 can determine information related to the hazardous condition (e.g., where the fire is located, its heat intensity, amount of smoke, and the like) i.e., "magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic");
determining a location of the first environmental condition detection device (Fig. 3, in combination with [0053] and [0054] teach a system which tracks the direction of the fire's movement. These paragraphs teach that the system determines sensor locations by integrating distributed sensors and smoke detectors into a centralized controller engine to map environmental hazards within a specific location. To provide an exit direction or display an arrow, the system requires knowledge of the fixed physical coordinates of the output device and its sensors relative to an understood floor plan.);
determining a first relative location of the environmental condition based on the location of the first environmental condition detection device ([0057] teaches that fire event information can be identified, which can be related to, but not limited to, position within the location (e.g., which room, which floor, and the like); and
determining a first intensity value for the environmental condition based at least in part on the magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic indicated by the first alert ([0057] teaches determining fire intensity, as well as detecting gas measurements).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Lasenby per the teachings of Kadam, and determine the location of the environmental condition detection device, because this modification would allow for identification of the precise origin of an environmental condition rather than a general zone. Additionally, such a modification would have been obvious to reduce emergency response times by providing first responders with the exact location, and it would allow for targeted activation of suppression systems, such as sprinklers.
The combined teachings of Lasenby and Kadam fails to expressly teach generating a heatmap to graphically represent the first relative location and first intensity value of the environmental condition – wherein graphically is interpreted as a visual representation of said heatmap imagery.
BURES teaches a system which employs multi-sensor units to gather time-series environmental data for a measurement database and further teaches generating a heatmap to graphically represent the first relative location and first intensity value of the environmental condition ([0333]-[0335] teach that heat map data can be generated from measurements collected across different locations of a facility over time, illustrating a rendering of a particular type of measurement).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to further modify the combined disclosures of Lasenby and Kadam per the teachings of Bures (particularly given that Kadam’s system already processes sensor data to determine environmental attributes like smoke intensity) and configure the system such that a heatmap can be displayed via a graphical user interface, thereby allowing users to interact with the data, and visualize changes in measurements across the facility over time. Additionally, such a heatmap would provide improved situational awareness and tactical clarity needed for first responders to identify entry/exit points and high-risk zones.
Regarding claims 2 and 11,
Bures/Kadam teach that the magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic is indicated by a value from the sensor, wherein the value corresponds to current or voltage ([0146] of Bures teaches that voltage and current measurements are associated with the magnitude of monitored electrical events through their respective waveforms. Time-series measurements of voltage and current are used to determine the magnitude and phase of voltage and current waveforms);
the first alert comprises a timestamp and identification information for the first environmental condition detection device (see, [0073], [0079] of Bures);
the location of the first environmental condition detection device is determined by referencing a database comprising identification and location information ([0022] of Bures teaches that locations are stored and utilized within a measurement database managed by the monitoring data analysis system 140);
the first relative location of the environmental condition is centered on the location of the first environmental condition detection device (Kadam teaches in [0054] that the system requires knowledge of fixed physical coordinates of sensors relative to a floor plan to map hazards, therefore sensor locations serve as a spatial reference point); and
the first intensity value is graphically represented by a radius, a color, or a combination of radius and color (Kadam teaches in [0037] information for first responders may be augmented at least in-part with colors for utilization during emergencies).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 17,
Kadam teaches receiving a second alert from the first environmental condition detection device, wherein the second alert indicates a second magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic detected by the sensor; determining a second intensity value for the environmental condition based at least in part on the second magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic indicated by the second alert; and revising the heatmap to graphically represent the second intensity value for the environmental condition ([0086] teaches that device 700 can include a plurality of cameras/sensors 766, as understood by those of skill in the art. Given that the system is already configured to perform advanced computational analysis to determine an intensity value (see, [0006], [0007], [0032], [0041] and [0082]) and generate a localized heat map from a single sensor’s input (and see the disclosure of Bures as discussed above), it is consistent that data from a plurality of distributed sensors will be processed using the same foundational logic. This processing enables the system to aggregate individual intensity values into a centralized controller engine (see, [0053] and [0054] of Kadam), facilitating the creation of a multi-point environmental hazard map).
Regarding claims 4, 13, 18,
Kadam teaches receiving a second alert from a second environmental condition detection device based on the detection of an environmental condition characteristic in proximity to the second environmental condition detection device, wherein: the second environmental condition detection device comprises a sensor to detect a magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic; the second alert indicates a second magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic detected by the sensor; determining a location of the second environmental condition detection device based at least in part on the second alert; determining a second relative location of the environmental condition based at least in part on the location of the second environmental condition detection device; determining a second intensity value for the environmental condition based at least in part on the magnitude of the environmental condition characteristic indicated by the second alert; and revising the heatmap to graphically represent the second relative location and second intensity value of the environmental condition (Claims 1, 10 and 16, which recites a first environmental detection device and the features and characteristics attributed thereto, is rejected. [0086] teaches that device 700 can include a plurality of cameras/sensors 766, as understood by those of skill in the art. Given that the system is already configured to perform advanced computational analysis to determine an intensity value (see, [0006], [0007], [0032], [0041] and [0082]) and generate a localized heat map from a single sensor’s input (and see the disclosure of Bures as discussed above), it is consistent that data from a plurality of distributed sensors will be processed using the same foundational logic. This processing enables the system to aggregate individual intensity values into a centralized controller engine (see, [0053] and [0054] of Kadam), facilitating the creation of a multi-point environmental hazard map. Claims 4, 13 and 18 are therefore rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of claims 1, 10 and 16).
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 20,
Kadam teaches determining a direction of spread for the environmental condition based at least in part on the relative locations of the first and second environmental condition detection devices ([0053] teaches providing additional information related to, but not limited to, the climate at the location (e.g., air quality, types of gasses, concentration and smoke detection levels, as well as direction of the fire's movement, and the like);
determining a rate of spread for the environmental condition based at least in part on a difference in time between receiving the first and second alerts ([0057] teaches, "For example, fire event information can be identified...(e.g., which room, which floor, and the like), spread of fire, thermal conditions, ...location and quantity of flammable materials, air quality, fire intensity... and the like, or some combination thereof." At least the combined "thermal conditions" and "fire intensity" data are interpreted as providing rate of spread information); and
revising the heatmap to graphically represent the direction and rate of spread for the environmental condition ([0083] teaches that within the system, sensor updates can also provide updates to the fire, which can cause dynamic updates to the path, which can be effectively relayed via the operations of the steps of Process 300. Therefore it is reasonable to interpret this disclosure as teaching that a generated heatmap is revised in such a system.)
Regarding claim 7,
Bures teaches that the heatmap visually depicts a location and an intensity of the environmental condition using color, gradients, topographical lines, or a combination color, gradients, or topographical lines ([0334] teaches that heat maps can visually indicate locations of the different measurements relative to the facility, based on the location of the respective multi-sensor unit that collected the measurement, as indicated in the contextual database 544. The heat maps can further indicate the measurement value based on a corresponding color in the visualization.)
Regarding claim 8,
Kadam teaches that the environmental condition characteristic comprises smoke particles, light, heat, odor, a toxic gas, or a combination thereof ([0058] teaches determining information related to hazardous conditions e.g., fire locations, heat intensity, amounts of smoke or the like).
Regarding claim 9,
Kadam teaches determining an exit path for people to avoid the environmental condition based on the heatmap; and revising the heatmap to indicate the safe exit path ([0078] teaches that engine 200 can determine attributes of the physical path along an exit route).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 14 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE PENDLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7497. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5pm.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/DIONNE PENDLETON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689