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 Claim(s)
This action is a non-final office action is response to application 19/107,805 filed on February 28, 2025. Claim(s) 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 28, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on the PCT application filed in United States on 08/29/2023 (PCT/US23/73034).
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 classifier module,” Claim(s) 1 and 14.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 recites “a classifier module” which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and perform functions which are not coextensive with a computer processor. However, the written description fails to describe and clearly link any structure associated with the nonce terms “classifier module.” When a claim containing a computer- implemented § 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under § 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the hardware and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function(s), it will also lack written description under § 112(a).
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 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.
Claim limitations “a classifier module” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
MPEP 2181 (IV) states:
Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.
Here, the specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function(s). The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one or ordinary skill in the art would understand, respectively, structure or structures that perform(s) the claimed function(s) associated with the “classifier module.”
Instead, the specification merely restates the functions using the same or very similar wording, which is not sufficient to provide corresponding structure for definiteness. Therefore, the claim(s) are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong 1: Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14 recites an entity that provides alerts to a user. Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14 as a whole recites limitation(s) that are directed to the abstract idea(s) of certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., mitigating risk) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim 1 recite(s) “identifying a user,” “associating a plurality of parameters with the user,” “receiving data from a plurality of sources,” “filtering the data based on the plurality of parameters to generate a subset of data,” “determining a category of the subset of data,” “inputting the filtered data based on the category of the subset of data and the plurality of parameters,” “identifying the event based on outputs, wherein the event is identified as ongoing or upcoming and the outputs includes a set of values,” “associating a set of event data with the event,” “sending an alert and the set of event data to one or more accounts associated with the user if one or more of the values in the set of values of the outputs exceed one or more respective thresholds, wherein the thresholds are associated with the user,” and “receiving input from the user, wherein the input classifies the event,” step(s)are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., mitigating risk) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment).
Independent Claim 14 recite(s) ““identifying a user,” “associating a plurality of parameters with the user,” “receiving data from a plurality of sources,” “filtering the data based on the plurality of parameters to generate a subset of data,” “determining a category of the subset of data,” “inputting the filtered data based on the category of the subset of data and the plurality of parameters,” “identifying the event based on outputs, wherein the event is identified as ongoing or upcoming and the outputs includes a set of values,” “associating a set of event data with the event,” “sending an alert and the set of event data to one or more accounts associated with the user if one or more of the values in the set of values of the outputs exceed one or more respective thresholds, wherein the thresholds are associated with the user,” “receiving input from the user, wherein the input classifies the event,” “selecting a plan response form based on a type of the identified event if the input from the user classifies the event as an actionable event,” “filling a plurality of fields of the selected plan response form with information based on the event and the user,” and “sending the plan response form to the user,” step(s)are merely certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (e.g., mitigating risk) and/or commercial or legal interactions (e.g., business relations) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., following rules or instructions) and/or mental processes (e.g., observation, evaluation, and/or judgment). Furthermore, as, explained in the MPEP and
the October 2019 update, where a series of step(s) recite judicial exceptions, examiners
should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single
judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. (See, MPEP 2106.04,
2016.05(II) and October 2019 Update at Section I. B.). For instance, in this case,
Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14, are similar to an entity that receives reservation
information, which the entity can then book a user room reservation. The mere recitation
of generic computer components (Claim 1: a classifier module; and Claim 14: a classifier module) do not take the claims out of the enumerated grouping certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. Therefore, Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14, recites the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application because the claims as a whole describes how to generally “apply,” the
concept(s) of “identifying,” “associating,” “receiving,” “filtering,” “determining,” “inputting,” “identifying,” “associating,” “sending,” “receiving,” “selecting,” “filling,” and “sending,” respectively. The limitations that amount to “apply it,” are as follows (Claim 1: a classifier module; and Claim 14: a classifier module). Examiner, notes that the classifier module, are recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Similar to, Affinity Labs v. DirecTv., the court has held that certain additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when the additional elements merely use 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 (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) thus they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, which, amounts to no more than “applying,” the judicial exception. Here, the above additional elements are not integrated into a practical application or provide significantly more when they are merely identifying, associating, receiving, filtering, determining, inputting, identifying, associating, sending, receiving, selecting, filling, and sending, alert information which is no more than merely invoking computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (e.g., receiving and sending alert information) thus merely “applying,” the judicial exception.
Also, see the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Each of the above limitations simply implement an abstract idea that is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, which, is not practical application(s) of the abstract idea. Therefore, when viewed in combination these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the above abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted previously, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply it,” to the abstract idea in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are ineligible.
Claim(s) 2-13 and 15-23: The various metrics of Dependent Claim(s) 2-13 and 15-23, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For the reasons described above with respect to Independent Claim(s) 1 and 14, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than an abstract idea.
The dependent claim(s) 2-13 and 15-23, above do 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) in the dependent claim(s) above are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s), which, do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claim(s) 1-23 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 7,084,775 B1) in view of Walker et al. (US 2021/0264301 A1) and further in view of Hewinson (US 8,588,821 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith, teaches a method for identifying and managing an event comprising:
identifying a user. (Column 6, Lines 53-67); and (Column 7, Lines 20-30)(Smith teaches a user can register his or her mobile device with the weather information service. The weather service can then track the location of the user’s mobile device when evaluating and transmitting the weather alters. Smith, further, teaches upon registration with the weather service the service provider can track the location of the user’s mobile device along with the user mobile ID)
associating a plurality of parameters with the user. (Column 6, Lines 66-67); and (Column 7, Lines 1-19); (Column 10; Lines 53-63)(Smith teaches a use can specify how they would like to receive alerts. The user can also specify when and where they would like to receive alerts. Smith, also, teaches the user can indicate parameters such as the severity of the storm, probability of the storm hitting the user’s location, and coverage area of the storm)
receiving data from a plurality of sources. (Column 4, Lines 38-67); and (Column 5, Lines 1-11)(Smith teaches weather data can be received from weather information services and/or other sources (e.g., plurality of sources)
sending an alert and the set of event data to one or more accounts associated with the user
With respect to the above limitations: while Smith teaches a user can register with a weather service, which the service can track the location of the user. The system can determine various user parameters and receive weather data from different sources. The system can then send an alert to the user device based on the user location and distance. However, Smith, doesn’t explicitly teach filtering the data, which is categorized. The system will then input the filtered data into a classifier module based on the category of the subset of data and identify the event based on the classifications. The system will then associate the set of event data with the event. Smith, also, doesn’t explicitly teach sending an alert if one or more values exceed one or more respective thresholds that are associated with the user. Smith, also, doesn’t explicitly teach receiving input from the user, wherein the input classifies the event.
But, Walker et al. in the analogous art of determining critical events, teaches
filtering the data based on the plurality of parameters to generate a subset of data. (Paragraph 0044)(Walker et al. teaches the system can filter the intelligence data)
determining a category of the subset of data. (Paragraph 0045)(Walker et al. teaches the system can classify critical events into three categories based on whether they are naturally occurring, accidental, or intentionally caused by humans. The system can have a category such as a natural event (e.g., flood, earthquake, etc.) and/or an accidental event and/or an intentional human action (e.g., crime, military or paramilitary action, etc.))
inputting the filtered data into a classifier module based on the category of the subset of data and the plurality of parameters. (Paragraph(s) 0044-0046)(Walker et al. teaches filtering intelligence data. The system can then classify the intelligence data. The system can classify the weather as a natural occurrence such as a flood or an earthquake)
Identifying the event based on outputs of the classifier module, wherein the event is identified as ongoing or upcoming and the outputs includes a set of values. (Paragraph(s) 0024 and 0044-0045)(Walker et al. the system can filter intelligence data. The intelligence data can include weather data that describes current (i.e., ongoing) or near-current (i.e., upcoming) weather conditions)
associating a set of event data with the event. (Paragraph 0049)(Walker et al. the system can associate the data with an event to identify the mentioned intelligence data and organize them into a single event report)
receiving input from the user, wherein the input classifies the event. (Paragraph 0130)(Walker et al. teaches a user can report an event, including event information such as event type, event severity, event location, written or visual description)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events of Smith, by incorporating the teachings of filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to ensure safety and optimization of organization assets. (Walker et al.: Paragraph 00005)
With respect to the above limitations: while Walker et al. teaches filtering the data, which is categorized. The system will then input the filtered data into a classifier module based on the category of the subset of data and identify the event based on the classifications. The system will then associate the set of event data with the event. The system will also receive input from the user, wherein the input classifies the event. However, Smith and Walker et al., doesn’t explicitly teach sending an alert if one or more values exceed one or more respective thresholds that are associated with the user.
But, Hewinson in the analogous art of issuing alerts, teaches sending an alert if one or more of the values in the set of values of the outputs exceed one or more respective thresholds, wherein the thresholds are associated with the user. (Column 4, Lines 29-36); (Column 7, Lines 1-16); (Column 9, Lines 14-67); (Column 10, Lines 14-42); , Lines)(Hewinson teaches a user can input severity threshold levels. The system can determine that the temperature and/or wind exceeds a threshold level. The system can then provide a notification to notify a user of the potential server weather. The system can also provide a recommendation to the user, which the recommendation relates to the weather and how to be prepared for the weather)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events of Smith and filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., by incorporating the teachings of sending an alert to a user when the weather severity thresholds exceed a value of Hewinson, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to help provide more accurate weather information to a user. (Hewinson: Column 6, Lines 20-35)
Regarding Claim 2, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and wherein the plurality of parameters includes a geographic area and a type of hazardous event. (Column 10, Lines 41-63)(Smith teaches user preferences, which those user preferences can include parameters for alerting the user based on the severity of the storm (i.e., type of hazardous event) and distance of the storm from the user and the coverage area for the storm (i.e., geographic area))
Regarding Claim 7, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1 and further including receiving additional data after sending the alert, associating at least some of the additional data with the identified event, and sending an update to the user that includes the at least some of the additional data. (Column 9, Lines 1-32); and (Column 10, Liens 9-40)(Smith teaches an alert can be sent to a user. The user can then press an update button, which the system will then provide automatic updates to the user device. The system will send a message to the weather service provider indicating a weather alert update. The system will compare the requesting mobile devices current location to current meteorological information and then send the updated weather alert to the requesting mobile device)
Regarding Claim 8, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Smith, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the plurality of sources includes social media sources.
But, Walker et al. in the analogous art of determining critical events, teaches wherein the plurality of sources includes social media sources. (Paragraph 0026)(Walker et al. teaches intelligence data can be received through social media posts (e.g., social media sources))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events of Smith, by incorporating the teachings of receiving data from social media posts of Walker et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to ensure safety and optimization of organization assets. (Walker et al.: Paragraph 00005)
Regarding Claim 9, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 8.
However, Smith, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the plurality of sources includes newspaper reports.
But, Walker et al. in the analogous art of , teaches wherein the plurality of sources includes social media sources. (Paragraph 0026)(Walker et al. teaches intelligence data can be received through news articles (e.g., newspaper reports))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events of Smith, by incorporating the teachings of receiving data from news articles of Walker et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to ensure safety and optimization of organization assets. (Walker et al.: Paragraph 00005)
Claim 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 7,084,775 B1) in view of Walker et al. (US 2021/0264301 A1) and further in view of Hewinson (US 8,588,821 B1) and further in view of Tarlton et al. (US 6,462,665 B1).
Regarding Claim 3, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, do not explicitly teach if the input from the user classifies the event as not a significant threat, recording the input, the plurality of parameters, and the set of values in a database of the classifier module.
But, Tarlton et al. in the analogous art of weather alerts, teaches teach if the input from the user classifies the event as not a significant threat, recording the input, the plurality of parameters, and the set of values in a database of the classifier module. (Column 4, Lines 22-41); (Column 7, Lines 60-67); and (Column 8, Lines 1-3)(Tarlton et al. teaches a subscriber can provide the type of warning each subscriber has selected to be warned about, a warning level (e.g., weather or hazardous condition threshold level) or category, which will be stored in a database. Tarlton et al., further, teaches that the user will not be alerted of the weather event unless it has been categorized in the database to be above a certain threshold)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events based on wind strength, wind speed, and wind direction of Smith, filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., and sending an alert to a user when the weather severity thresholds exceed a value of Hewinson, by incorporating the teachings of storing threshold and user preference information in a database of Tarlton et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to help minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters. (Tarlton et al.: Column 1, Lines 10-21)
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 7,084,775 B1) in view of Walker et al. (US 2021/0264301 A1) and further in view of Hewinson (US 8,588,821 B1) and further in view of Hart (US 10,142,213 B1).
Regarding Claim 4, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, do not explicitly teach if the input from the user classifies the event as a significant threat, sending the alert and the set of the event data to additional accounts associated with the user based on a rating of event severity.
But, Hart in the analogous art of sending weather alerts, teaches if the input from the user classifies the event as a significant threat, sending the alert and the set of the event data to additional accounts associated with the user based on a rating of event severity. (Column 5, Lines 8-23); (Column 6, Lines 6-24); (Column 12, Lines 17-29); and (Column 13, Lines 25-35)(Hart teaches a user can specify criteria the types of notifications that they would like to receive. The user can provide locations or areas they would like monitored. Hart, further, teaches that the user can specify which devices should receive the alert notifications (e.g., additional accounts associated with the user), such as family members and/or employees. Hart. also, teaches that he user can specify the event type priorities. The location for the one or more specified devices can be monitored, which the system will issue an alert to those devices if the monitored location is found to be a match)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events based on wind strength, wind speed, and wind direction of Smith, filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., and sending an alert to a user when the weather severity thresholds exceed a value of Hewinson, by incorporating the teachings of sending an alert to devices that matches the monitored location of Hart, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to improve safety or well-being of an individual by identifying events in a timely manner. (Hart: Column 1, Lines 16-37)
Claim(s) 5-6, 14-17, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 7,084,775 B1) in view of Walker et al. (US 2021/0264301 A1) and further in view of Hewinson (US 8,588,821 B1) and further in view of Williams et al. (US 10,904,696 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 1.
However, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, do not explicitly teach if the input from the user classifies the event as a significant threat, selecting a planning form based on a type of the identified event.
But, Williams in the analogous art of providing weather alerts, teaches if the input from the user classifies the event as a significant threat, selecting a planning form based on a type of the identified event. (Column 10, Lines 18-60); (Column 11, Lines 1-13); (Column 13, Lines 7-28); (Fig. 15)(Williams et al. teaches a push notification can be sent to the user. The push notification can be sent to the user based on information that is relevant to the user. The system can trigger severe weather notifications along with a checklist (e.g., planning form) will both be sent to the user. The system can send a hurricane checklist or a tornado checklist depending on the weather event)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events based on wind strength, wind speed, and wind direction of Smith, filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., and sending an alert to a user when the weather severity thresholds exceed a value of Hewinson, by incorporating the teachings of sending a weather alert and weather checklist to a user device of Williams et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to reduce the loss of life, injury, damage, and overall negative impact of disasters and emergencies on individuals and communities. (Williams et al.: Column 14, Lines 37-48)
Regarding Claim 6, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Williams et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 5.
However, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, do not explicitly teach further including filling a plurality of fields of the selected planning form with information based on the event and the user.
But, Williams et al. in the analogous art of providing weather alerts, teaches further including filling a plurality of fields of the selected planning form with information based on the event and the user. (Column 10, Lines 18-60); (Column 11, Lines 1-13); (Column 13, Lines 7-28); (Fig. 15)(Williams et al. teaches a push notification can be sent to the user. The push notification can be sent to the user based on information that is relevant to the user. The system can trigger severe weather notifications along with a checklist (e.g., planning form) will both be sent to the user. The system can send a hurricane checklist or a tornado checklist depending on the weather event. The checklist can be provided to the user, which includes items that are recommended to the user to prepare for the upcoming weather event. The user can complete the checklist items and check each of the items off as it is done)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events based on wind strength, wind speed, and wind direction of Smith, filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., and sending an alert to a user when the weather severity thresholds exceed a value of Hewinson, by incorporating the teachings of sending a weather alert and a pre-filled weather checklist to a user device of Williams et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to reduce the loss of life, injury, damage, and overall negative impact of disasters and emergencies on individuals and communities. (Williams et al.: Column 14, Lines 37-48)
Regarding Claim 14, Smith, teaches a method for identifying and managing an event comprising:
identifying a user. (Column 6, Lines 53-67); and (Column 7, Lines 20-30)(Smith teaches a user can register his or her mobile device with the weather information service. The weather service can then track the location of the user’s mobile device when evaluating and transmitting the weather alters. Smith, further, teaches upon registration with the weather service the service provider can track the location of the user’s mobile device along with the user mobile ID)
associating a plurality of parameters with the user. (Column 6, Lines 66-67); and (Column 7, Lines 1-19); (Column 10; Lines 53-63)(Smith teaches a use can specify how they would like to receive alerts. The user can also specify when and where they would like to receive alerts. Smith, also, teaches the user can indicate parameters such as the severity of the storm, probability of the storm hitting the user’s location, and coverage area of the storm)
receiving data from a plurality of sources. (Column 4, Lines 38-67); and (Column 5, Lines 1-11)(Smith teaches weather data can be received from weather information services and/or other sources (e.g., plurality of sources)
sending an alert and the set of event data to one or more accounts associated with the user 24)(Smith teaches an alert can be sent to a user device based on the user’s location information and a user defined buffer distance for the weather alert.
With respect to the above limitations: while Smith teaches a user can register with a weather service, which the service can track the location of the user. The system can determine various user parameters and receive weather data from different sources. The system can then send an alert to the user device based on the user location and distance. However, Smith, doesn’t explicitly teach filtering the data, which is categorized. The system will then input the filtered data into a classifier module based on the category of the subset of data and identify the event based on the classifications. The system will then associate the set of event data with the event. Smith, also, doesn’t explicitly teach sending an alert if one or more values exceed one or more respective thresholds that are associated with the user. Smith, also, doesn’t explicitly teach receiving input from the user, wherein the input classifies the event. Smith, also, doesn’t explicitly teach selecting a plan response form based on the type of the event and filling a plurality of fields of the plan response form and sending the form to the user.
But, Walker et al. in the analogous art of determining critical events, teaches
filtering the data based on the plurality of parameters to generate a subset of data. (Paragraph 0044)(Walker et al. teaches the system can filter the intelligence data)
determining a category of the subset of data. (Paragraph 0045)(Walker et al. teaches the system can classify critical events into three categories based on whether they are naturally occurring, accidental, or intentionally caused by humans. The system can have a category such as a natural event (e.g., flood, earthquake, etc.) and/or an accidental event and/or an intentional human action (e.g., crime, military or paramilitary action, etc.))
inputting the filtered data into a classifier module based on the category of the subset of data and the plurality of parameters. (Paragraph(s) 0044-0046)(Walker et al. teaches filtering intelligence data. The system can then classify the intelligence data. The system can classify the weather as a natural occurrence such as a flood or an earthquake)
Identifying the event based on outputs of the classifier module, wherein the event is identified as ongoing or upcoming and the outputs includes a set of values. (Paragraph(s) 0024 and 0044-0045)(Walker et al. the system can filter intelligence data. The intelligence data can include weather data that describes current (i.e., ongoing) or near-current (i.e., upcoming) weather conditions)
associating a set of event data with the event. (Paragraph 0049)(Walker et al. the system can associate the data with an event to identify the mentioned intelligence data and organize them into a single event report)
receiving input from the user, wherein the input classifies the event. (Paragraph 0130)(Walker et al. teaches a user can report an event, including event information such as event type, event severity, event location, written or visual description)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events of Smith, by incorporating the teachings of filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to ensure safety and optimization of organization assets. (Walker et al.: Paragraph 00005)
With respect to the above limitations: while Walker et al. teaches filtering the data, which is categorized. The system will then input the filtered data into a classifier module based on the category of the subset of data and identify the event based on the classifications. The system will then associate the set of event data with the event. The system will also receive input from the user, wherein the input classifies the event. However, Smith and Walker et al., doesn’t explicitly teach sending an alert if one or more values exceed one or more respective thresholds that are associated with the user. Smith and Walker et al., also, do not explicitly teach selecting a plan response form based on the type of the event and filling a plurality of fields of the plan response form and sending the form to the user.
But, Hewinson in the analogous art of issuing alerts, teaches sending an alert if one or more of the values in the set of values of the outputs exceed one or more respective thresholds, wherein the thresholds are associated with the user. (Column 4, Lines 29-36); (Column 7, Lines 1-16); (Column 9, Lines 14-67); (Column 10, Lines 14-42); , Lines)(Hewinson teaches a user can input severity threshold levels. The system can determine that the temperature and/or wind exceeds a threshold level. The system can then provide a notification to notify a user of the potential server weather. The system can also provide a recommendation to the user, which the recommendation relates to the weather and how to be prepared for the weather)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events of Smith and filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., by incorporating the teachings of sending an alert to a user when the weather severity thresholds exceed a value of Hewinson, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to help provide more accurate weather information to a user. (Hewinson: Column 6, Lines 20-35)
With respect to the above limitations: while Hewinson teaches sending an alert if one or more values exceed one or more respective thresholds that are associated with the user. Smith, Walker et al., and Hewinson also, do not explicitly teach selecting a plan response form based on the type of the event and filling a plurality of fields of the plan response form and sending the form to the user.
But, Williams et al. in the analogous art of providing weather alerts, teaches
selecting a plan response form based on a type of the identified event if the input from the user classifies the event as an actionable event. (Column 10, Lines 18-60); (Column 11, Lines 1-13); (Column 13, Lines 7-28); (Fig. 15)(Williams et al. teaches a push notification can be sent to the user. The push notification can be sent to the user based on information that is relevant to the user. The system can trigger severe weather notifications along with a checklist (e.g., planning form) will both be sent to the user. The system can send a hurricane checklist or a tornado checklist depending on the weather event)
filling a plurality of fields of the selected plan response form with information based on the event and the user. (Column 10, Lines 18-60); (Column 11, Lines 1-13); (Column 13, Lines 7-28); (Fig. 15)(Williams et al. teaches a push notification can be sent to the user. The push notification can be sent to the user based on information that is relevant to the user. The system can trigger severe weather notifications along with a checklist (e.g., planning form) will both be sent to the user. The system can send a hurricane checklist or a tornado checklist depending on the weather event. The checklist can be provided to the user, which includes items that are recommended to the user to prepare for the upcoming weather event. The user can complete the checklist items and check each of the items off as it is done)
sending the plan response form to the user. (Column 10, Lines 18-60); (Column 11, Lines 1-13); (Column 13, Lines 7-28); (Fig. 15)(Williams et al. teaches a push notification can be sent to the user. The push notification can be sent to the user based on information that is relevant to the user. The system can trigger severe weather notifications along with a checklist (e.g., planning form) will both be sent to the user. The system can send a hurricane checklist or a tornado checklist depending on the weather event)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events based on wind strength, wind speed, and wind direction of Smith, filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., and sending an alert to a user when the weather severity thresholds exceed a value of Hewinson, by incorporating the teachings of sending a weather alert and a pre-filled weather checklist to a user device of Williams et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to reduce the loss of life, injury, damage, and overall negative impact of disasters and emergencies on individuals and communities. (Williams et al.: Column 14, Lines 37-48)
Regarding Claim 15, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Williams et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 14 and further including receiving additional data after sending the alert, associating at least some of the additional data with the identified event, and sending an update to the user that includes the at least some of the additional data. (See, the relevant rejection of Claim(s) 7 and 14)
Regarding Claim 16, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Williams et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 15 and wherein the plurality of sources includes social media sources. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 8 and 15)
Regarding Claim 17, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Williams et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 16 and wherein the plurality of sources includes newspaper reports. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 9 and 16)
Regarding Claim 23, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Williams et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 14 and wherein the plurality of parameters includes a geographic area and a type of hazardous event. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 2 and 14)
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 7,084,775 B1) in view of Walker et al. (US 2021/0264301 A1) and further in view of Hewinson (US 8,588,821 B1) and further in view of Rainey et al. (US 2017/0300840 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 9 and wherein the data includes sustained wind speed,
With respect to the above limitations: while Smith teaches the weather data can include wind speed and wind direction. However, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson, do not explicitly teach wind gust.
But, Rainey et al. in the analogous art of weather analysis, teaches wherein the data includes peak wind gust. (Paragraph 0037)(Rainey et al. teaches the weather data can include day/night wind gust, day/night wind direction, and day/night wind speed)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events based on wind strength, wind speed, and wind direction of Smith, filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., and sending an alert to a user when the weather severity thresholds exceed a value of Hewinson, by incorporating the teachings of weather data includes wind gust, wind speed, and wind direction or Rainey et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to help provide advanced warnings to users for safety risks. (Rainey et al.: Paragraph(s) 0001-0002 and 0020)
Regarding Claim 11, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Rainey et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 10.
But, Smith/Walker et al., do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more thresholds include a wind speed value and a precipitation amount.
But, Hewinson in the analogous art of issuing alerts, teaches wherein the one or more thresholds include a wind speed value and a precipitation amount. (Column 4, Lines 29-36); (Column 7, Lines 1-16); (Column 9, Lines 14-67); (Column 10, Lines 14-42); , Lines)(Hewinson teaches a user can input severity threshold levels. The system can determine that the temperature and/or wind exceeds a threshold level. The system can then provide a notification to notify a user of the potential server weather. The system can determine a weather severity threshold includes a wind speed of 20 miles per hour (i.e., wind speed value). The system can also provide a recommendation to the user, which the recommendation relates to the weather and how to be prepared for the weather. Hewinson, also, teaches one weather severity threshold can be used for each weather condition such as temperature, wind, and precipitation (e.g., one or more thresholds include precipitation amount))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events of Smith and filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., by incorporating the teachings of sending an alert to a user when the weather severity thresholds exceed a value of Hewinson, with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to help provide more accurate weather information to a user. (Hewinson: Column 6, Lines 20-35)
Regarding Claim 12, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Rainey et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 11.
However, Smith, doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the input form the user classifies the event as no risk of hazardous event, low risk of hazardous event, moderate risk of hazardous event, high risk of hazardous event or severe risk of hazardous event.
But, Walker et al. in the analogous art of determining critical events, teaches wherein the input form the user classifies the event as no risk of hazardous event, low risk of hazardous event, moderate risk of hazardous event, high risk of hazardous event or severe risk of hazardous event. (Paragraph(s) 0054 and 0130)(Walker et al. teaches a user can report an event, including event information such as event type, event severity (e.g., risk level), event location, written or visual description. Walker et al., further, teaches that the user can specified the severity levels (i.e., low risk, moderate risk, high risk, or server risk) of the event types)
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events of Smith, by incorporating the teachings of filtering and classifying weather data, which the system can receive user input as it relates to the weather event data of Walker et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to ensure safety and optimization of organization assets. (Walker et al.: Paragraph 00005)
Regarding Claim 13, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Rainey et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 12 and wherein the alert includes a confidence level and a potential risk level for the event. (Column 9, Lines 57-67); and (Column 10, Lines 1-8)(Smith teaches the alert includes textual information along with a banner the indicates the importance of the warning (e.g., confidence level). The alert can display one “Alert,” (e.g., confidence level) for severity level (e.g., potential risk level), two “Alert,” (e.g., confidence level) for medium importance (e.g., potential risk level), and/or three “Alert,” (e.g., confidence level) to warn of emergency weather (e.g., potential risk level) information. The system can also display stars, such that the more stars the more severe the weather. The system can also use color codes, such as blue meaning weak warning, red meaning emergency warning or a severity meter)
Claim(s) 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 7,084,775 B1) in view of Walker et al. (US 2021/0264301 A1) and further in view of Hewinson (US 8,588,821 B1) and Williams et al. (US 10,904,696 B2) and further in view of Rainey et al. (US 2017/0300840 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Williams et al./Rainey et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 17 and wherein the data includes sustained wind speed, peak wind gust, and wind direction. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 10 and 17)
Regarding Claim 19, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Williams et al./Rainey et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 18 and wherein the one or more thresholds include a wind speed value and a precipitation amount. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 11 and 18)
Regarding Claim 20, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Williams et al./Rainey et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 19 and wherein the input form the user classifies the event as no risk of hazardous event, low risk of hazardous event, moderate risk of hazardous event, high risk of hazardous event or severe risk of hazardous event. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 12 and 19)
Regarding Claim 21, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Williams et al./Rainey et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 20 and wherein the alert includes a confidence level and a potential risk level for the event. (See, the relevant rejection(s) of Claim(s) 13 and 20)
Regarding Claim 22, Smith/Walker et al./Hewinson/Williams et al./Rainey et al., teaches all the limitations as applied to Claim 21.
However, Smith, doesn’t explicitly teach further including sending, with the alert, a recommendation for taking action based on a combination of the confidence level and the potential risk level for the event.
But, Walker et al. in the analogous art of providing weather alerts, teaches further including sending, with the alert, a recommendation for taking action based on a combination of the confidence level and the potential risk level for the event. (Paragraph(s) 0054, 0056, 0061, and 0131) and (Fig. 8B)(Walker et al. teaches determining a severity level (e.g., confidence level) that indicates a risk level of damage to assets (e.g., potential risk level). The system can then send an alert to the user device. Walker et al., further, teaches the alert can be sent to the user device which the alert can include a recommendation for the event. The alert can provide that heavy flooding is occurring, which people should seek higher ground or evacuate if possible (e.g., recommendation))
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a system for alerting users of adverse weather events of Smith, by incorporating the teachings of determining risk and a severity level for a weather event and providing a recommendation for the weather event of Walker et al., with the motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to combine the prior art reference teachings to ensure safety and optimization of organization assets. (Walker et al.: Paragraph 00005)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN A HEFLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-3524. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:00 M-F.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at (571) 270-1833. 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.
/B.A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628