DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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) 1-3, 5, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (JP 2018110025 A) in view of Nakajima (JP 2016146523 A).
Claim 1. Fujikawa teaches an information processing device (Fig. 3) comprising:
position detection circuitry that detects a current position
(Page 3- The GPS function unit 103 calculates a coordinate indicating the position of the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C on the ground by processing signals received from GPS satellites via the antennas in the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C. (e.g. position detection circuitry));
notification circuitry that, when receiving a safety confirmation request including a disaster occurrence position via a communication network, notifies that the safety confirmation request has been received
(Page 4- an emergency early warning receiving unit 1041, emergency bulletin receiving unit 1041 (e.g. notification circuitry )
Page - When an earthquake occurs, the disaster management server 3 transmits an emergency bulletin to the safety confirmation information providing apparatus 2 and the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C via the network 1000...
Page 6- information acquisition request from the mobile terminal 1A. The position information is transmitted to 1B and 1C together with the safety confirmation information described later.).
Fujikawa further teaches a safety answer circuitry to return a safety status (pages 6/11) but does not specifically disclose the safety answer circuitry that, when a distance between the current position and the disaster occurrence position included in the safety confirmation request is a threshold distance or more, returns a specified safety status.
However, Nakajima teaches the safety answer circuitry that, when a distance between the current position and the disaster occurrence position included in the safety confirmation request is a threshold distance or more, returns a specified safety status
(Page 5- The communication terminal 1 compares the position information acquired last time with the position information acquired at the present time, and determines whether or not the change amount (distance) as the difference is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold A (step S20). If the change amount is greater than or equal to the threshold value A, it is stored as position information for the next transmission (step S21).
Page 6- If there is updated information as a result of the determinations made in step S20 and step S22, the updated information is transmitted to the host device 5. (e.g. return safety status-S20)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the safety answer circuitry as taught by Nakajima within the system of Fujikawa for the purpose of enhancing the system to provide an updated status confirming the device has surpassed the limits of the hazardous area and reached a safety point.
Claim 2. Fujikawa and Nakajima teach the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: input circuitry that receives an input of a safety status
(Fujikawa Page 5- The operation unit 108 is composed of a switch group that accepts an operation from the user with respect to the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C, and is generally configured by a pressure sensor and a push button.),
wherein, when the disaster occurrence position is closer to the current position than a threshold distance, the safety answer circuitry causes the notification circuitry to notify an input request for the safety status, and returns the safety status input by the input circuitry
(Page 11- For this reason, when an emergency bulletin is issued only for a specific area (for example, an area having a seismic intensity of 5 or less in the emergency earthquake bulletin), the positions of the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C immediately before and after that are Only when it is located in the vicinity of the area, the safety confirmation operation can be performed, and it is possible to quickly perform a process different from the process for the mobile terminal in the area unrelated to the area.).
Claim 3. Fujikawa and Nakajima teach the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein: the safety confirmation request further includes the threshold distance
(Fujikawa Page 11- When movement over a predetermined distance (for example, 100 m) is confirmed, it is possible to determine that the user holding the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C has moved and is in a safe state. Here, the reason for setting the threshold of movement of a predetermined distance is that different position information is sent to the safety confirmation information providing device 2 even when the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C are not moved due to an error of the GPS signal or the like. It is because it may be done.)
, and the safety answer circuitry determines whether the disaster occurrence position is far from the current position by the threshold distance or more by using the threshold distance
included in the safety confirmation request
(Page - the user of the portable terminal 1B can confirm the safety confirmation information of the portable terminal 1A. For example, in the e-mail address (xyz@abc.co.jp), “We found that mobile terminal 1A was moved a considerable distance after the earthquake occurred.).
Claim 5. Fujikawa teaches a safety confirmation system in which a first information processing device and a plurality of second information processing devices used by a plurality of users can communicate with each other via a communication network
(Fujikawa Page 3- data exchange of the portable terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C are executed via the bus 101.),
wherein: the first information processing device includes safety confirmation requesting circuitry that, when receiving disaster information including a disaster occurrence position and a disaster scale via the communication network
(Page 3- For this reason, when an emergency bulletin is issued only for a specific area (for example, an area having a seismic intensity of 5 or less in the emergency earthquake bulletin)),
simultaneously transmits a safety confirmation request including the disaster occurrence position to the plurality of second information processing devices via the communication network
(Page 2- When an earthquake occurs, the disaster management server 3 transmits an emergency bulletin to the safety confirmation information providing apparatus 2 and the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C via the network 1000.
Page 6- The emergency bulletin receiving unit 2012 receives the emergency bulletin from the disaster management server 3 via the network 1000.
Page 6-When receiving the safety confirmation information acquisition request for requesting acquisition of the safety confirmation information of the user registered in advance from the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C, the location information notification unit 2013 receives the safety confirmation information acquisition request from the mobile terminal 1A.),
the second information processing device includes:
position detection circuitry that detects a current position
(Page 3- The GPS function unit 103 calculates a coordinate indicating the position of the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C on the ground by processing signals received from GPS satellites via the antennas in the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C. (e.g. position detection circuitry));
input circuitry that receives an input of a safety status
(Page 5- The operation unit 108 is composed of a switch group that accepts an operation from the user with respect to the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C, and is generally configured by a pressure sensor and a push button.),;
notification circuitry that, when receiving the safety confirmation request via the communication network, notifies that the safety confirmation request has been received
(Page 4 - an emergency early warning receiving unit 1041, emergency bulletin receiving unit 1041 (e.g. notification circuitry );
and the first information processing device further includes a safety status output circuitry
that aggregates the safety status returned from each of the plurality of second information
processing devices via the communication network and outputs the safety status that has been
aggregated
(Page 7- the processes of steps S1 to S9 are repeatedly executed at a preset time interval between the safety confirmation information providing device 2 and the portable terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C.
Page 8- Here, the determination unit 2014 determines the safety of each user by repeatedly receiving N (N is a positive integer) N times for each of the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C obtained at predetermined time intervals after receiving the emergency bulletin. Assume that pieces of position information are required...On the other hand, the determination unit 2014 determines that the safety of each user can be determined if the number of repetitions of position information acquisition after receiving the emergency breaking news reaches N times.).
Fujikawa further teaches the notification circuitry to notify an input request of the safety status when the disaster occurrence position is closer to the current position than the threshold distance
and further discloses a safety answer circuitry to return a safety status (pages 6/11) but does not specifically disclose safety answer circuitry that returns a specified safety status when a distance between the current position and the disaster occurrence position included in the safety confirmation request a threshold distance or more, and returns the safety status input by the input circuitry.
However, Nakajima teaches the safety answer circuitry that returns a specified safety status when a distance between the current position and the disaster occurrence position included in the safety confirmation request a threshold distance or more, and returns the safety status input by the input circuitry
(Page 5- The communication terminal 1 compares the position information acquired last time with the position information acquired at the present time, and determines whether or not the change amount (distance) as the difference is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold A (step S20). If the change amount is greater than or equal to the threshold value A, it is stored as position information for the next transmission (step S21).
Page 6- If there is updated information as a result of the determinations made in step S20 and step S22, the updated information is transmitted to the host device 5. ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the safety answer circuitry as taught by Nakajima within the system of Fujikawa for the purpose of enhancing the system to provide an updated status confirming the device has surpassed the limits of the hazardous area and reached a safety point.
Claim 11. Fujikawa and Nakajima teach the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the specified safety status indicates that the information processing device is beyond the distance threshold from the disaster occurrence position
(Nakajima Page 5- The communication terminal 1 compares the position information acquired last time with the position information acquired at the present time, and determines whether or not the change amount (distance) as the difference is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold A (step S20). If the change amount is greater than or equal to the threshold value A, it is stored as position information for the next transmission (step S21).
Page 6- If there is updated information as a result of the determinations made in step S20 and step S22, the updated information is transmitted to the host device 5. ).
Claim 12. Fujikawa and Nakajima teach the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the input request comprises a request for presenting options regarding a safety input and allowing a user to select the options
(Nakajima Page 3- The input unit includes an operation key operated by a user and a microphone for performing voice input in order to perform a call using a telephone function, send / receive e-mail, and the like.).
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa in view of Jumonji (WO 2021199306 A1).
Claim 4. Fujikawa teaches an information processing device comprising:
threshold determination circuitry that, when disaster information including a disaster occurrence position and a disaster scale is received via a communication network
(Page 2- When an earthquake occurs, the disaster management server 3 transmits an emergency bulletin to the safety confirmation information providing apparatus 2 and the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C via the network 1000. More specifically, the disaster management server 3 has mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C possessed by a user in the target area selected by the mobile phone operator via the base station of the mobile phone operator that manages the network 1000.);
safety confirmation requesting circuitry that simultaneously transmits a safety confirmation request including the disaster occurrence position and the threshold distance to a plurality of user terminals via the communication network
(Page 8- Thereafter, the determination unit 2014 determines whether or not it is possible to determine the safety of each of the users who have the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C based on the acquired location information of the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C (step S106)... Here, the determination unit 2014 determines the safety of each user by repeatedly receiving N (N is a positive integer) N times for each of the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C obtained at predetermined time intervals after receiving the emergency bulletin.);
and safety status transmission circuitry that aggregates the safety status returned from each of the plurality of user terminals via the communication network, and outputs the safety status that has been aggregated
(Page 11/12- Furthermore, in the case where the location information is periodically sent from immediately after the occurrence of the emergency bulletin by the safety confirmation information providing device 2 constantly grasping the location of the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C in this way, When movement over a predetermined distance (for example, 100 m) is confirmed, it is possible to determine that the user holding the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C has moved and is in a safe state. Here, the reason for setting the threshold of movement of a predetermined distance is that different position information is sent to the safety confirmation information providing device 2 even when the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C are not moved due to an error of the GPS signal or the like. It is because it may be done. Assume that pieces of position information are required. In this case, the determination unit 2014 determines that the safety determination of each user is impossible if the number of repetitions of position information acquisition after receiving the emergency bulletin is less than N times. On the other hand, the determination unit 2014 determines that the safety of each user can be determined if the number of repetitions of position information acquisition after receiving the emergency breaking news reaches N times.).
Fujikawa further discloses the process of determining affected areas and determines a threshold distance based on the disaster occurrence position
(Page 2- When an earthquake occurs, the disaster management server 3 transmits an emergency bulletin to the safety confirmation information providing apparatus 2 and the mobile terminals 1A, 1B, and 1C via the network 1000. More specifically, the disaster management server 3 has mobile terminals 1A, 1B, 1C possessed by a user in the target area selected by the mobile phone operator via the base station of the mobile phone operator that manages the network 1000.))
but does not specifically disclose the disaster scale included in the disaster information.
However, Jumonji teaches the disaster scale included in the disaster information
(Page 8- the disaster information regarding the earthquake may include, for example, the area A of the epicenter, the magnitude, and the respective seismic intensity in each area a to e as the degree (level) of the disaster.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the disaster information as taught by Jumonji within the system of Fujikawa for the purpose of enhancing the system to use a graphical depiction in order to better inform a user of the seismic intensity of the disaster and their respective location within the disaster area.
Claim 14. Fujikawa and Jumonji teach the information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the safety confirmation requesting circuitry stores a user identification of a user of the user terminal to which the safety confirmation request is transmitted in a safety information table
(Fujikawa Page 9- Here, the safety information notification means 2015 includes the terminal identification information ).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa, Nakajima and further in view of Ishizeki (JP 2002083061 A).
Claim 9. Fujikawa and Nakajima teach the information processing device according to claim 1, and further discloses of having a speaker for use of outputting information but do not specifically disclose wherein the notification circuitry generates a reception sound of a predetermined safety confirmation request from a speaker.
However, Ishizeki teaches wherein the notification circuitry generates a reception sound of a predetermined safety confirmation request from a speaker.
(Page 13- While communicating, it is possible to acquire the latest status information according to the user's request in the form of an image and a sound, and to distribute the obtained latest status information to a third party designated by the user using the Internet or the like.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the notification circuitry as taught by Ishizeki within the system of Fujikawa for the purpose of enhancing the system to immediately alert a user of a catastrophic event.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa, Nakajima and further in view of Abe (JP H09247730 A).
Claim 10. Fujikawa and Nakajima teach the information processing device according to claim 1, and further discloses the use of a base station and communicating with a mobile terminal (Fujikawa Page 13, Nakajima page 2) but do not specifically disclose wherein the position detection circuitry acquires the current position based on positional relationships with a plurality of base stations in a mobile phone network.
However, Abe teaches wherein the position detection circuitry acquires the current position based on positional relationships with a plurality of base stations in a mobile phone network
(Page 3- terminal equipped with a GPS terminal receives radio waves from the radio base station 1 and the radio base station 2, measures the electric field strength thereof, stores the electric field strength in the terminal internal processing unit, The position information received and data processed and the unique number of the terminal are transmitted to the search side terminal via the public network management center, the position information of the wireless base station and the position information calculated from the satellite, and the position information of both is transmitted.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the position detection circuitry acquires the current position based on positional relationships with a plurality of base stations in a mobile phone network as taught by Abe within the system of Fujikawa for the purpose of enhancing the system to locate the mobile terminal more efficiently in order to provide an accurate real-time update of the position of the mobile terminal.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa, Nakajima and further in view of Doutre (US 20230196903 A1).
Claim 13. Fujikawa and Nakajima teach the information processing device according to claim 12, and discloses of determining the threshold distance but do not specifically disclose wherein the threshold determination circuitry determines the threshold distance using learned data obtained by learning a threshold distance with respect to a disaster occurrence position and a disaster scale from data indicating a distance for avoiding a damage with respect to disaster occurrence positions and disaster scales of past disasters.
However, Doutre teaches wherein the threshold determination circuitry determines the threshold distance using learned data obtained by learning a threshold distance with respect to a disaster occurrence position and a disaster scale from data indicating a distance for avoiding a damage with respect to disaster occurrence positions and disaster scales of past disasters
([0111] For example, the historical data 1106 may indicate that, when flooding occurs, such flooding may be less severe in a given region (e.g., a first county) and more severe in one or more other regions that are one or more of adjacent the given region and within a given distance from the given region other region (e.g., one or more second counties adjacent the first county and/or within a given distance from the first county).
[0112] In some examples, the historical data 1106 may comprise historical distribution tracking data 1104 that may be used to train one or more machine learning algorithms implemented by the workflow server 102, as described in further detail below.
(e.g. Threshold distance is learned from historical data)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of invention to use the threshold determination circuitry as taught by Doutre within the system of Fujikawa for the purpose of appropriately notifying disaster information to certain devices based on historical trends having higher areas of concern.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 09 July 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa (JP-2018110025-A) in view of Nakajima (JP 2016146523 A) for claims 1-3, 5, 9—13; and 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujikawa in view of Jumonji (WO 2021199306 A1) for claims 4 and 14.
For claims 1 and 5, Applicant states the prior art fails to teach the limitation of “the safety answer circuitry that, when a distance between the current position and the disaster occurrence position included in the safety confirmation request is a threshold distance or more, returns a specified safety status.” However, the newly found prior art of Nakajima provides the obviousness improvement. Therefore, Fujikawa in view of Nakajima are obvious over the claimed invention.
Applicant states the prior art fails to teach the limitation of “determining a threshold distance based on the disaster occurrence position and the disaster scale included in the disaster information”. However, the newly found prior art of Jumonji provides the obviousness improvement. Therefore, Fujikawa in view of Jumonji are obvious over the claimed invention.
Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Lastly. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS C POINT whose telephone number is (571)270-7510. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUFUS C POINT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights