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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 24 March 2025.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 9-14 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine), claims 1-8 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 15-20 is/are drawn to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
obtaining an actual environmental parameter of each of a plurality of first detection areas in a first time period, wherein the plurality of first detection areas are located in a production workshop;
obtaining a first environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of first detection areas in a second time period based on the actual environmental parameter of each of the plurality of first detection areas, wherein the second time period is a future time period of the first time period;
performing a detection area expansion operation for the production workshop based on an area position of each of the plurality of first detection areas in the production workshop to obtain a plurality of second detection areas;
obtaining a second environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of second detection areas in the second time period based on the first environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of first detection areas; and
generating safety pre-warning information corresponding to a risk area responsive to determining that the risk area is present in the plurality of second detection areas based on the second environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of second detection areas, and sending the safety pre-warning information, to broadcast the safety pre-warning information.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses safety detection. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing a personal behavior or interaction between people of detecting environment parameters and creating a safety warning for people, which falls under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 includes the following additional element(s): a target terminal. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2 and 3 further include(s) the additional element(s): a trained time sequence model (claims 2 and 3), a first self-attention module (claim 3), distillation module (claim 3), a second self-attention module (claim 3), and a mutual attention module (claim 3). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 4-8 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 4-8 are ineligible.
Claim 9 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 9 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 9 recites the following additional elements: at least one processor, a memory connected in communication with the at least one processor, and the instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to facilitate, and a target terminal. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 10 and 11 further include(s) the additional element(s): a trained time sequence model (claims 10 and 11), a first self-attention module (claim 11), distillation module (claim 11), a second self-attention module (claim 11), and a mutual attention module (claim 11). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 12-14 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 9. Therefor claim(s) 12-14 are ineligible.
Claim 15 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Claim 15 recites an abstract idea similar in nature to claim 1. Furthermore, claim 15 recites the following additional elements: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer-executable instruction stored thereon, the computer -executable instruction, when executed by a computer causes the computer to facilitate; and a target terminal. These additional elements do no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claim(s) 16-17 further include(s) the additional element(s): a trained time sequence model (claims 16 and 17), a first self-attention module (claim 17), distillation module (claim 17), a second self-attention module (claim 17), and a mutual attention module (claim 17). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 18-20 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 15. Therefor claim(s) 18-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-9 12-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth (US 20210193336 A1) in view of Roux (US 20060286922 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nemeth teaches a method for safety detection, comprising:
obtaining an actual environmental parameter of each of a plurality of first detection areas in a first time period, wherein the plurality of first detection areas are located in a building (Paragraph [0170] “When danger is detected in any zone, for each zone ‘X’ in the building, each sensor ‘Y’ is read.”; Fig. 4C; Fig. 4D; Examiner notes Paragraph [0136] states that the building can include office buildings, school buildings, theaters, or the like.)
obtaining a first environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of first detection areas in a second time period based on the actual environmental parameter of each of the plurality of first detection areas, wherein the second time period is a future time period of the first time period; (Paragraph [0170] “During the emergency, prior movement of the threat ‘Q’ may be used to predict future movement of the location of that threat entering zone ‘X’ at a time ‘T’”; Fig. 4C and 4D)
performing a detection area expansion operation for the production workshop based on an area position of each of the plurality of first detection areas in the production workshop to obtain a plurality of second detection areas; (Paragraph [0155] “emergencies such as fire, smoke, hazardous materials release, natural gas leaks, and flooding naturally expand, sometimes quickly, from a zone of initial occurrence to adjacent zones […] The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a predicted zone danger level in the adjacent Zone(N), based the detected emergency in the zone of initial occurrence, Zone(A).”; Fig. 4C and 4D)
obtaining a second environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of second detection areas in the second time period based on the first environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of first detection areas; (Paragraph [0155] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a predicted zone danger level in the adjacent Zone(N), based the detected emergency in the zone of initial occurrence, Zone(A).”; Paragraph [0170] “During the emergency, prior movement of the threat ‘Q’ may be used to predict future movement of the location of that threat entering zone ‘X’ at a time ‘T’”; Fig. 4C and 4D) and
generating safety pre-warning information corresponding to a risk area responsive to determining that the risk area is present in the plurality of second detection areas based on the second environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of second detection areas, and sending the safety pre-warning information to a target terminal, where the target terminal is used to broadcast the safety pre-warning information. (Paragraph [0169] “the building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 calculates the safest evacuation route, based at least on one of [1] avoiding where the emergency has been located and is currently located, or [2] avoiding where the emergency is predicted to be located.”; Paragraph [0171] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 calculates a respective evacuation route “Z” commencing from the user interfaces 100 distributed among the zones in the building.”; Paragraph [0140] “FIG. 1B is an example network and functional block diagram of another embodiment of the building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 integrated into the building automation system 150 of FIG. 1, wherein the evacuation route is displayed on the occupant's mobile wireless device 170”; Fig. 1B; Fig. 4C and 4D)
Nemeth does not teach:
wherein the plurality of first detection areas are located in a production workshop.
However, Roux teaches:
wherein the plurality of first detection areas are located in a production workshop. (Paragraph [0004] “The invention makes the decision to turn on the exhaust fan and dry out the confined space in the event that a factory predetermined moisture level has been exceeded”)
This step of Roux is applicable to the method of Nemeth as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing the safety levels of a building. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nemeth to incorporate the building being a production workshop as taught by Roux. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Nemeth in order to limit the destruction or health risks caused by negligence on the part of users or infrequent maintenance (see paragraph [0004] of Roux).
Regarding claim 4, Nemeth in view of Roux teaches the method of claim 1. Nemeth further teaches:
wherein the performing the detection area expansion operation for the production workshop based on the area position of each of the plurality of first detection areas in the production workshop to obtain the plurality of second detection areas, comprises:
by using each of the plurality of first detection areas as the first area to be processed, determining at least one risk diffusion area related to the first area to be processed from the production workshop to obtain M risk diffusion areas related to the plurality of first detection areas, wherein M ≥ 2 and M is an integer; (Paragraph [0155] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a predicted zone danger level in the adjacent Zone(N), based the detected emergency in the zone of initial occurrence, Zone(A).”; Paragraph [0170] “During the emergency, prior movement of the threat ‘Q’ may be used to predict future movement of the location of that threat entering zone ‘X’ at a time ‘T’”; Fig. 4C and 4D) and
obtaining the plurality of second detection areas based on the plurality of first detection areas and the M risk diffusion areas. (Paragraph [0155] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a predicted zone danger level in the adjacent Zone(N), based the detected emergency in the zone of initial occurrence, Zone(A).”; Paragraph [0170] “During the emergency, prior movement of the threat ‘Q’ may be used to predict future movement of the location of that threat entering zone ‘X’ at a time ‘T’”; Fig. 4C and 4D)
Regarding claim 5, Nemeth in view of Roux teaches the method of claim 4. Nemeth further teaches:
wherein the obtaining the plurality of second detection areas based on the plurality of first detection areas and the M risk diffusion areas, comprises:
obtaining at least one mergeable area group based on the M risk diffusion areas, wherein each of the at least one mergeable area group includes N mergeable areas in the M risk diffusion areas, where 2≤N≤M, and M and N are an integer; (Paragraph [0145] “The possible evacuation routes may be defined on the floor plan of FIG. 2 at the time of commissioning the building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 integrated into the building automation system 150 for the building.”; Examiner notes an evacuation route contains a combination of area zones.)
performing area merging on each of the at least one mergeable area group, respectively, to obtain at least one risk diffusion merged area, wherein the at least one risk diffusion merged area corresponds one-to-one to the at least one mergeable area group; (Paragraph [0156] “For an evacuation commencing from Zone(B), each proposed evacuation route commencing from Zone(B) is examined by calculating a route danger level as the sum of the products of the length of the component segments, such as D1, D2, and D3 for Route(B3) from Zone(B), times the zone danger level for each respective zone through which the segment passes in FIG. 2B.”; Examiner notes the danger of all the zones in a route is combined.) and
collectively using the plurality of first detection areas and the at least one risk diffusion merged area as the plurality of second detection areas. (Paragraph [0155] “emergencies such as fire, smoke, hazardous materials release, natural gas leaks, and flooding naturally expand, sometimes quickly, from a zone of initial occurrence to adjacent zones […] The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a predicted zone danger level in the adjacent Zone(N), based the detected emergency in the zone of initial occurrence, Zone(A).”; Fig. 4B, 4C and 4D; Examiner notes Fig. 4b shows that the route zones and the location where the danger originates from is part of the map containing all the zones.)
Regarding claim 6, Nemeth in view of Roux teaches the method of claim 5. Nemeth further teaches:
wherein the obtaining the second environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of second detection areas in the second time period based on the first environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of first detection areas, comprises:
by using each risk diffusion merged area in the plurality of second detection areas as a second area to be processed, determining at least one reference area related to the second area to be processed from the plurality of first detection areas; (Paragraph [0155] “emergencies such as fire, smoke, hazardous materials release, natural gas leaks, and flooding naturally expand, sometimes quickly, from a zone of initial occurrence to adjacent zones […] The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a predicted zone danger level in the adjacent Zone(N), based the detected emergency in the zone of initial occurrence, Zone(A).”; Fig. 4B, 4C and 4D) and
obtaining the second environmental parameter prediction result of the second area to be processed in the second time period based on the first environmental parameter prediction result of the at least one reference area. (Paragraph [0155] “emergencies such as fire, smoke, hazardous materials release, natural gas leaks, and flooding naturally expand, sometimes quickly, from a zone of initial occurrence to adjacent zones […] The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a predicted zone danger level in the adjacent Zone(N), based the detected emergency in the zone of initial occurrence, Zone(A).”; Fig. 4B, 4C and 4D)
Regarding claim 7, Nemeth in view of Roux teaches the method of claim 1. Nemeth further teaches:
by using each of the plurality of second detection areas as a third area to be processed, obtaining at least one risk assessment parameter based on the second environmental parameter prediction result of the third area to be processed; (Paragraph [0155] “emergencies such as fire, smoke, hazardous materials release, natural gas leaks, and flooding naturally expand, sometimes quickly, from a zone of initial occurrence to adjacent zones […] The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a predicted zone danger level in the adjacent Zone(N), based the detected emergency in the zone of initial occurrence, Zone(A).”; Fig. 4B, 4C and 4D)
determining that the risk area is present in the plurality of second detection areas responsive to determining the third area to be processed to be the risk area based on the at least one risk assessment parameter (Paragraph [0155] “emergencies such as fire, smoke, hazardous materials release, natural gas leaks, and flooding naturally expand, sometimes quickly, from a zone of initial occurrence to adjacent zones […] The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a predicted zone danger level in the adjacent Zone(N), based the detected emergency in the zone of initial occurrence, Zone(A).”; Fig. 4B, 4C and 4D)
Nemeth does not teach:
obtaining a risk parameter threshold corresponding to each of the at least one risk assessment parameter; and
determining that the risk area is present in the plurality of second detection areas responsive to determining the third area to be processed to be the risk area based on the at least one risk assessment parameter and the risk parameter threshold corresponding to each of the at least one risk assessment parameter.
However, Roux teaches:
obtaining a risk parameter threshold corresponding to each of the at least one risk assessment parameter; (Paragraph [0004] “the invention makes the decision to turn on the exhaust fan and dry out the confined space in the event that a factory predetermined moisture level has been exceeded”; Paragraph [0007] “The NPN transistor(Q1) recieves the "moisure present" signal from the sensor and shapes it appropriately to be used to drive the LM311 Comparator (U2), which when the appropriate level is reached will trigger the LS7213 Timer (U5) to drive the output triac (U4) for the appropriate time chosen” of Roux) and
determining that the risk area is present responsive to determining the third area to be processed to be the risk area based on the at least one risk assessment parameter and the risk parameter threshold corresponding to each of the at least one risk assessment parameter. (Paragraph [0004] “the invention makes the decision to turn on the exhaust fan and dry out the confined space in the event that a factory predetermined moisture level has been exceeded”; Paragraph [0007] “The NPN transistor(Q1) recieves the "moisure present" signal from the sensor and shapes it appropriately to be used to drive the LM311 Comparator (U2), which when the appropriate level is reached will trigger the LS7213 Timer (U5) to drive the output triac (U4) for the appropriate time chosen” of Roux)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Nemeth is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Nemeth in view of Roux teaches the method of claim 1. Nemeth further teaches:
wherein the generating the safety pre-warning information corresponding to the risk area, comprises:
constructing an initial workshop image based on an internal structure of the building (Paragraph [0157] “At the time of commissioning the building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160, the fire prediction map of FIG. 4 is compiled and stored in memory 132”)
determining a target point corresponding to the risk area in the initial workshop image; (Paragraph [0157] “A total of 14 different fire prediction maps are compiled and stored, one for each of the zones (A) through (N) where a different fire is simulated to originate”; Fig. 4) and
performing special marking on the target point in the initial workshop image to obtain a target workshop image, and obtaining the safety pre-warning information based on the target workshop image. (Paragraph [0157] “A total of 14 different fire prediction maps are compiled and stored, one for each of the zones (A) through (N) where a different fire is simulated to originate”; Paragraph [0140] “FIG. 1B is an example network and functional block diagram of another embodiment of the building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 integrated into the building automation system 150 of FIG. 1, wherein the evacuation route is displayed on the occupant's mobile wireless device 170”; Paragraph [0161] “FIG. 4B is an example display on the user interface UI(2) in Zone(B) showing the display by user interface UI(2) of the safest evacuation ROUTE(B2) from Zone(B) at 6 minutes into the future, according to an embodiment of the disclosure.”; Fig. 4-4B)
Nemeth does not teach:
constructing an initial workshop image based on an internal structure of the production workshop.
However, Roux teaches:
the building being a production workshop. (Paragraph [0004] “The invention makes the decision to turn on the exhaust fan and dry out the confined space in the event that a factory predetermined moisture level has been exceeded”)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Nemeth is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 9 and 12-14:
Claim(s) 9 and 12-14 is/are directed to a system. Claim(s) 9 and 12-14 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1 and 4-6, which are directed towards a method. Claim(s) 9 and 12-14 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1 and 4-6, respectively. Claims 9 and 12-14 further recite at least one processor; and a memory connected in communication with the at least one processors; wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor, and the instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to facilitate (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0138] of Nemeth).
Claims 15 and 18-20:
Claim(s) 15 and 18-20 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim(s) 15 and 18-20 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 1 and 4-6, which are directed towards a method. Claim(s) 15 and 18-20 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 1 and 4-6, respectively. Claims 15 and 18-20 further recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer-executable instruction stored thereon, the computer-executable instruction, when executed by a computer causes the computer to facilitate (see Paragraph [0189]; Fig. 1 of Nemeth).
Claim(s) 2-3, 10-11, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemeth (US 20210193336 A1) in view of Roux (US 20060286922 A1) in further view of Choudhury (US 20240127049 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nemeth in view of Roux teaches the method of claim 1. Nemeth further teaches:
wherein the obtaining the first environmental parameter prediction result of each of the plurality of first detection areas in the second time period based on the actual environmental parameter of each of the plurality of first detection areas, comprises:
constructing a first input sequence based on the actual environmental parameter of a first area to be processed by using each of the plurality of first detection areas as the first area to be processed; (Paragraph [0142] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 maintains a record of past received indications comprising past instances of sensor reading levels of the detected emergency […] The following Table A shows an example of a record of past instances of the sensor reading level SA[t] at time “t” for sensors s(1) and S(2) in Zone(A). The time t starts at t=0 and continues as t=1, then t=2, etc.”; Table A of Nemeth)
constructing a second input sequence based on the actual environmental parameter of the first area to be processed(Paragraph [0142] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 maintains a record of past received indications comprising past instances of sensor reading levels of the detected emergency […] The following Table A shows an example of a record of past instances of the sensor reading level SA[t] at time “t” for sensors s(1) and S(2) in Zone(A). The time t starts at t=0 and continues as t=1, then t=2, etc.”; Table A of Nemeth)
inputting the first input sequence and the second input sequence into a (Paragraph [0142] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a past-present zone danger level of the detected emergency in a zone, based on calculating a sum of products of weight values for the past instances of the sensor reading levels times the past sensor reading levels.”) and
obtaining the first environmental parameter prediction result of the first area to be processed in the second time period based on the integral output sequence.(Paragraph [0142] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a past-present zone danger level of the detected emergency in a zone, based on calculating a sum of products of weight values for the past instances of the sensor reading levels times the past sensor reading levels.”; Paragraph [0170] “During the emergency, prior movement of the threat ‘Q’ may be used to predict future movement of the location of that threat entering zone ‘X’ at a time ‘T’”; Fig. 4C and 4D)
Nemeth in view of Roux does not teach:
constructing a second input sequence based on the actual environmental parameter of the first area to be processed and a preset input sequence;
the time sequence model being trained.
However, Choudhury teaches:
constructing a second input sequence based on the actual parameter of the first area to be processed and a preset input sequence; (Paragraph [0177] “In step 512, the mapping unit 12 pads the first input sequence to produce a first padded input sequence of a first fixed length. This first fixed length has been selected in advance for the encoder stack (for example, in an earlier training phase).”)
the time sequence model being trained. (Paragraph [0177] “In step 512, the mapping unit 12 pads the first input sequence to produce a first padded input sequence of a first fixed length. This first fixed length has been selected in advance for the encoder stack (for example, in an earlier training phase).”)
This step of Choudhury is applicable to the method of Nemeth as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing the inputs to a computerized model environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Nemeth to incorporate a preset input sequence and a trained model as taught by Choudhury. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Nemeth in order to teach a trained model to focus on a certain part of its input (see paragraph [0002] of Choudhury).
Regarding claim 3, Nemeth in view of Roux, in further view of Choudhury teaches the method of claim 2. Nemeth further teaches:
the inputting the first input sequence and the second input sequence into
inputting the first input sequence (Paragraph [0142] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 maintains a record of past received indications comprising past instances of sensor reading levels of the detected emergency […] The following Table A shows an example of a record of past instances of the sensor reading level SA[t] at time “t” for sensors s(1) and S(2) in Zone(A). The time t starts at t=0 and continues as t=1, then t=2, etc.”; Paragraph [0170] “During the emergency, prior movement of the threat ‘Q’ may be used to predict future movement of the location of that threat entering zone ‘X’ at a time ‘T’”; Table A of Nemeth)
inputting the second input sequence into a second self-attention module (Paragraph [0142] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 maintains a record of past received indications comprising past instances of sensor reading levels of the detected emergency […] The following Table A shows an example of a record of past instances of the sensor reading level SA[t] at time “t” for sensors s(1) and S(2) in Zone(A). The time t starts at t=0 and continues as t=1, then t=2, etc.”; Table A of Nemeth) and
inputting the first input feature mapping result and the second input feature mapping result into a mutual attention module (Paragraph [0142] “The building automation emergency response and occupant evacuation system 160 determines a past-present zone danger level of the detected emergency in a zone, based on calculating a sum of products of weight values for the past instances of the sensor reading levels times the past sensor reading levels.”)
Nemeth in view of Roux does not teach:
the time sequence model being trained;
the modules being in an encoder.
However, Choudhury teaches:
wherein the trained time sequence model comprises an encoder and a decoder; (Paragraph [0176] “the attention-based neural network is a transformer network comprising an encoder and a decoder” of Choudhury)
the time sequence model being trained; (Paragraph [0177] “This first fixed length has been selected in advance for the encoder stack (for example, in an earlier training phase).” Of Choudhury)
the modules being in an encoder. (Paragraph [0176] “the attention-based neural network is a transformer network comprising an encoder and a decoder” of Choudhury)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Nemeth is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 10 and 11:
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are directed to a system. Claim(s) 10 and 11 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 2 and 3, which are directed towards a method. Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 2 and 3, respectively. Claims 10 and 11 further recite at least one processor; and a memory connected in communication with the at least one processors; wherein the memory stores an instruction executable by the at least one processor, and the instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to facilitate (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0138] of Nemeth).
Claims 16 and 17:
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium. Claim(s) 16 and 17 recite limitations parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim(s) 2 and 3, which are directed towards a method. Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set above for claim(s) 2 and 3, respectively. Claims 16 and 17 further recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having a computer-executable instruction stored thereon, the computer-executable instruction, when executed by a computer causes the computer to facilitate (see Paragraph [0189]; Fig. 1 of Nemeth).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571) 272-6782. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628