Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “emergency alter system” should be “emergency alert system”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities the period after “data” in the first limitation should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
Claim 1:
incident management system for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding
anonymous reporting system for providing
emergency alter system…for indicating
data collection system…to collect
communication management system to keep…informed
visitor management system including a guest registration system and a background check for ensuring
Claim 3:
incident management system is configured to predict
Claim 4:
patrolling management system configured to track and manage…to ensure
facility and asset management system configured to manage and monitor
Claim 5:
mass communication system configured to communicate…operable to inform…to alert
emergency notification system configured to alert
other communication means to notify
broadcasting system configured to stream…operable to broadcast…to display
communicate…via…similar means
Claim 6:
communication management system is configured to update
Claim 7:
self-service interface…to provide
Claim 8:
safety operation center configured for monitoring
cyber-incident management system configured to monitor
Claim 9:
ridership management system configured to monitor…to ensure
situation awareness system configured to generate
Claim 16:
incident management system…for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding
anonymous reporting system for allowing
safety operation center system for monitoring
cyber-incident management system configured to monitor
ridership management system configured to monitor
Claim 17:
situation awareness system configured to generate
Claim 18:
health and wellness system configured to securely manage
Claim 20:
classroom observation management system configured to collect and monitor
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(b)
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 – 9, 16 – 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations:
Claim 1:
incident management system for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding
anonymous reporting system for providing
emergency alter system…for indicating
data collection system…to collect
communication management system to keep…informed
visitor management system including a guest registration system and a background check for ensuring
Claim 3:
incident management system is configured to predict
Claim 4:
patrolling management system configured to track and manage…to ensure
facility and asset management system configured to manage and monitor
Claim 5:
mass communication system configured to communicate…operable to inform…to alert
emergency notification system configured to alert
other communication means to notify
broadcasting system configured to stream…operable to broadcast…to display
communicate…via…similar means
Claim 6:
communication management system is configured to update
Claim 7:
self-service interface…to provide
Claim 8:
safety operation center configured for monitoring
cyber-incident management system configured to monitor
Claim 9:
ridership management system configured to monitor…to ensure
situation awareness system configured to generate
Claim 16:
incident management system…for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding
anonymous reporting system for allowing
safety operation center system for monitoring
cyber-incident management system configured to monitor
ridership management system configured to monitor
Claim 17:
situation awareness system configured to generate
Claim 18:
health and wellness system configured to securely manage
Claim 20:
classroom observation management system configured to collect and monitor
invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to disclose the metes and bounds of what the corresponding structure to perform each of the aforementioned functions could be. 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.
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 § 112(a)
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 – 9, 16 – 20 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.
In regards to claims 1 – 9, 16 – 20, the Examiner asserts that the specification, as originally filed, fails to adequately disclose the corresponding structural elements that comprise the system:
Claim 1:
incident management system for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding
anonymous reporting system for providing
emergency alter system…for indicating
data collection system…to collect
communication management system to keep…informed
visitor management system including a guest registration system and a background check for ensuring
Claim 3:
incident management system is configured to predict
Claim 4:
patrolling management system configured to track and manage…to ensure
facility and asset management system configured to manage and monitor
Claim 5:
mass communication system configured to communicate…operable to inform…to alert
emergency notification system configured to alert
other communication means to notify
broadcasting system configured to stream…operable to broadcast…to display
communicate…via…similar means
Claim 6:
communication management system is configured to update
Claim 7:
self-service interface…to provide
Claim 8:
safety operation center configured for monitoring
cyber-incident management system configured to monitor
Claim 9:
ridership management system configured to monitor…to ensure
situation awareness system configured to generate
Claim 16:
incident management system…for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding
anonymous reporting system for allowing
safety operation center system for monitoring
cyber-incident management system configured to monitor
ridership management system configured to monitor
Claim 17:
situation awareness system configured to generate
Claim 18:
health and wellness system configured to securely manage
Claim 20:
classroom observation management system configured to collect and monitor
Upon review of the specification, the Examiner asserts that the claims are directed to a system (apparatus) and recites the components (see above) that comprise the system. However, the claims and specification fail to disclose the corresponding structural elements that each of the placeholders are intended to represent in order to perform their respective functions. As a result, the structure of the system is unknown. Simply pointing or stating a result is insufficient to meet the written description requirement and has done nothing but provide a “black box” scenario, wherein information is received into this “black box” and an output is recited while failing to explain or disclose the structure that comprise the “black box” environment so as to achieve the corresponding functions and output.
Although one skilled in the art would have found the invention to be enabled because one skilled in the art could possibly come up with one way of configuring a system to be comprised of structural elements to perform the aforementioned functions, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine how the applicant has configured the system, i.e. the specific structural elements, for performing the recited functions and would, therefore, be unable to determine if the applicant had possession of the invention. To put it another way, one skilled in the art would be unable to make and use the invention in the manner intended by the applicant since the applicant has failed to provide sufficient working examples of how the analysis and solution are determined so as to cover the wide scope laid out by the claimed invention and, therefore, one skilled in the art would be unable to determine whether the applicant had possession of the genus since insufficient species have been provided. One skilled in the art would have found that the claimed invention and corresponding specification is attempting to claim all known and unknown possibilities structural configurations for performing the aforementioned functions without providing sufficient examples, in the specification, to allow one skilled in the art to determine whether the applicant had possession of such a wide scope of possibilities.
Finally, as a point of clarification, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 contains a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. See AriadPharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Col., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F. 2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Specifically, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art and show that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention.
Therefore, the test for determining whether or not the applicant’s claims meet the § 112(a) written description requirement is possession, not whether one skilled in the art is enabled to perform the invention. Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the case at hand, the Examiner concludes that the applicant’s disclosure fails to sufficiently disclose possession at the time of the invention. Furthermore, the applicants are attempting to claim any and all possible structural configurations and, consequently, attempting to claim the entire genus of configurations, however, the specification does not demonstrate a generic invention that achieves the claimed result because there is no disclosure of any species. As the Federal Circuit has stated in Ariad:
“generic claim may define the boundaries of a vast genus of chemical compounds, and yet the question may still remain whether the specification, including original claim language, demonstrates that the Appellant has invented the species sufficient to support a claim to a genus. The problem is especially acute with genus claims that use functional language to define the boundaries of a claimed genus. In such a case, the functional claim may simply claim a desired result, and may do so without describing species that achieve that result. But the specification must demonstrate that the Appellant has made a generic invention that achieves the claimed result and do so by showing that the Appellant has invented species sufficient to support a claim to the functionally- defined genus.”
Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349 (emphasis added). While Ariad relates to chemical compounds, the legal principles are the same. By not providing any specific examples of how an indication of merit (which is “functional language”) could be calculated, the applicant has failed to provide disclosure and, therefore, possession of any species of the genus of structural elements intended to comprise the system to perform the recited functions, as claimed.
Furthermore, the applicant’s claim to such an open-ended genus of configurations is similar to the claims at issue in Ariad that "merely recite a description of the problem to be solved while claiming all solutions to it.” Id. At 1353. Ariad further states that “Patents are not awarded for academic theories [and a] patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for the search, but compensation for its conclusion.” Id. Therefore, Ariad requires that when the applicant claims a genus, sufficient materials must be disclosed to demonstrate that the genus has in fact been disclosed which the applicant has not.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite:
Claim 1:
centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events
providing individual users in the user community with a safe and private means for reporting concerning behavior;
an emergency alert button for indicating there is an emergency
customizable surveys to collect information from community users
keep community users informed;
guest registration and a background check for ensuring a visitor is safe through screening and tracking
Claim 10:
managing incidents using a centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events;
allowing anonymous reporting by providing individual users in the user community;
providing emergency alter system including a digital emergency alert button for indicating there is an emergency;
collecting data from community users by customizable surveys;
managing communication to keep community users informed with important update information; and
managing visitors to ensure all visitors are safe and monitored while at the community through screening and tracking
Claim 16:
centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events to predict future incidents and to determine a possible or likely next sequence of events based on collected incident events and personal data.;
allowing users to anonymously report incidents and an emergency alter system for remotely indicating a user is experiencing an emergency;
a safety operation center for monitoring the community and communicating with law enforcement, wherein the safety operation center includes:
monitor the use of community networks, cyber threats, and cyber bullying; and
monitor user usage of community vehicles to ensure that a user safely boards and de-boards from the vehicles
The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of risk management and mitigation, which corresponds to “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” as it is directed towards steps that can be performed by humans communicating with one another, e.g., having a first human collect and organize information to track, manage, and respond to events reported by another human, providing an alert (word of mouth, pen and paper, utilizing a generic device (speaker), collect information from other humans, and collecting and comparing visitor information and, based on a rule(s), identify options .
The limitations of:
Claim 1:
centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events
providing individual users in the user community with a safe and private means for reporting concerning behavior;
an emergency alert button for indicating there is an emergency
customizable surveys to collect information from community users
keep community users informed;
guest registration and a background check for ensuring a visitor is safe through screening and tracking
Claim 10:
managing incidents using a centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events;
allowing anonymous reporting by providing individual users in the user community;
providing emergency alter system including a digital emergency alert button for indicating there is an emergency;
collecting data from community users by customizable surveys;
managing communication to keep community users informed with important update information; and
managing visitors to ensure all visitors are safe and monitored while at the community through screening and tracking
Claim 16:
centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events to predict future incidents and to determine a possible or likely next sequence of events based on collected incident events and personal data.;
allowing users to anonymously report incidents and an emergency alter system for remotely indicating a user is experiencing an emergency;
a safety operation center for monitoring the community and communicating with law enforcement, wherein the safety operation center includes:
monitor the use of community networks, cyber threats, and cyber bullying; and
monitor user usage of community vehicles to ensure that a user safely boards and de-boards from the vehicles,
are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of (Claims 1, 16) generic systems and generic artificial intelligence (AI) (NOTE: The specification fails to disclose what the corresponding structural elements for achieving their respective functions and the claimed invention, with the exception of claims 3, 12, 16 fails to recite any technology), while Claim 10 does not recite any technology for performing the invention (thereby establishing that technology is not required to make and use the invention, that the invention is resolving an issue that arose in technology, improving technology, or deeply rooted in technology, but directed towards the collection, organization, and comparison of information that can be performed by having humans talk to one another). That is, other than reciting generic systems and generic AI nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the generic systems and generic AI in the context of this claim encompasses a human can observe or interact with other humans to collect information and analyze or evaluate the collected information to identify or determine what options are available and whether any action(s) should be taken. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic systems and generic AI, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – generic systems to communicate information, as well as performing operations that a human can perform in their mind and/or pen and paper or interacting with other humans, i.e. evaluating the collected information to determine what actions to take or what information to convey to other humans. The generic systems in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic systems can perform the insignificant extra solution steps of communicating information (See MPEP 2106.05(g) while also reciting that the generic systems are merely being applied to perform the steps that can be performed by a human(s), in the human mind, and/or with the aid of pen and paper; "[use] of 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) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.” Therefore, according to the MPEP, this is not solely limited to computers but includes other technology that, recited in an equivalent to “apply it,” is a mere instruction to perform the abstract idea on that technology and describing an idea of a solution while failing how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic systems.
Although claims 3, 12, 16 recite “AI,” the claims and specification fail to provide sufficient disclosure regarding an improvement to AI, but simply recites a high-level generic recitation that AI is being used (i.e. applied). There is insufficient evidence from the specification to indicate that the use of the AI involves anything other than the generic application of a known technique or that the claimed invention purports to improve the functioning of the computer itself or the AI. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Applying AI is simply an application of a computer model, itself an abstract idea manifestation. Further, the AI is no more than putting data into a black box AI operation. The AI is a functional label, devoid of technological implementation and application details. The specification does not contend it invented any of these activities, or the creation and use of AI. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Examiner asserts that the scope of the disclosed invention, as presented in the originally filed specification, is not directed towards the improvement of AI, but directed towards the management of humans, incidents, and a location and the collection of information from other humans that can affect the managing process. The specification’s disclosure on AI is nothing more than a high general explanation of generic technology and applying it to the abstract idea. Referring to MPEP § 2106.05(f), the AI is merely being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea, which provides nothing more than a results-oriented solution that lacks detail of the mechanism for accomplishing the result and is equivalent to the words “apply it,” per MPEP § 2106.05(f). The Examiner asserts that in light of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence, the claimed invention is analogous to Example 47, Claim 2.
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system with AI. Because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 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 of using a generic systems and generic AI to perform the steps of:
Claim 1:
centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events
providing individual users in the user community with a safe and private means for reporting concerning behavior;
an emergency alert button for indicating there is an emergency
customizable surveys to collect information from community users
keep community users informed;
guest registration and a background check for ensuring a visitor is safe through screening and tracking
Claim 10:
managing incidents using a centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events;
allowing anonymous reporting by providing individual users in the user community;
providing emergency alter system including a digital emergency alert button for indicating there is an emergency;
collecting data from community users by customizable surveys;
managing communication to keep community users informed with important update information; and
managing visitors to ensure all visitors are safe and monitored while at the community through screening and tracking
Claim 16:
centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events to predict future incidents and to determine a possible or likely next sequence of events based on collected incident events and personal data.;
allowing users to anonymously report incidents and an emergency alter system for remotely indicating a user is experiencing an emergency;
a safety operation center for monitoring the community and communicating with law enforcement, wherein the safety operation center includes:
monitor the use of community networks, cyber threats, and cyber bullying; and
monitor user usage of community vehicles to ensure that a user safely boards and de-boards from the vehicles,
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally:
Claim 2 is directed towards descriptive subject matter describing what a community is intended to be.
Claim 4 is directed towards the recitation of (presumably) generic technology recited at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as human activities that are recited at a high level of generality and are nothing more than an idea of a solution that fails to disclose how the idea is specifically performed.
Claim 5 is directed towards the recitation of (presumably) generic technology recited at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea to perform the extra-solution activity of communicating information, as well as describing the intended audience and content of the communication.
Claim 6 is directed towards descriptive subject matter describing the content of the communication.
Claim 7 is directed towards human activities and the recitation of (presumably) generic technology recited at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is directed towards the recitation of generic technology recited at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as human activities that are recited at a high level of generality and are nothing more than an idea of a solution that fails to disclose how the idea is specifically performed.
Claim 9 is directed towards the recitation of generic technology recited at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea to perform the extra-solution activity of communicating and displaying information, as well as describing the content of the information.
Claim 18 is directed towards the recitation of generic technology recited at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea, as well as human activities that are recited at a high level of generality and are nothing more than an idea of a solution that fails to disclose how the idea is specifically performed.
Claim 19 is directed towards the recitation of generic technology recited at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea
Claim 20 is directed towards the recitation of generic technology recited at a high level of generality and applying it to the abstract idea to perform the extra-solution activity of communicating information, as well as human activities that are recited at a high level of generality and are nothing more than an idea of a solution that fails to disclose how the idea is specifically performed.
The remaining claims recite subject matter that has already been discussed above.
In summary, the dependent claims are simply directed towards providing additional descriptive factors that are considered for managing risk at a location and the wellbeing of humans. Accordingly, the claims 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 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.
Claims 1 – 7, 10 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coles (US PGPub 2020/0225313 A1) in view of McDonnell et al. (US PGPub 2017/0055138 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Coles discloses (Claim 1) a cloud-based system for facilitating health, safety, and wellness of individuals in a user community, the system comprising (Claim 10) a method for facilitating health, safety, and wellness of individuals in a user community, the method comprising the steps of:
(Claim 1) an incident management system having a centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events
(Claim 10) managing incidents using a centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events
(¶ 137; Fig. 5, 6A – 6H (with corresponding paragraphs explaining the figures) wherein the system includes an incident management system having a centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events);
(Claim 1) an […] reporting system for providing individual users in the user community with a safe […] means for reporting concerning behavior
(Claim 10) allowing […] reporting by providing individual users in the user community
(¶ 160, 174; Fig. 7E wherein a reporting system for providing individual users in the user community with a safe means for reporting concerning behavior is disclosed);
(Claim 1) an emergency alter system including a mobile application with an emergency alert button for indicating there is an emergency
(Claim 10) providing emergency alter system including a digital emergency alert button for indicating there is an emergency
(¶ 160, 174; Fig. 7E wherein an emergency alter system including a mobile application with an emergency alert button for indicating there is an emergency is disclosed);
(Claim 1) a data collection system including customizable surveys to collect information from community users
(Claim 10) collecting data from community users by customizable surveys
(¶ 132; Fig. 8C wherein a data collection system including customizable surveys to collect information from community users is disclosed);
(Claim 1) a communication management system to keep community users informed
(Claim 10) managing communication to keep community users informed with important update information
(¶ 114, 132 wherein a communication management system to keep community users informed is disclosed); and
(Claim 1) a visitor management system including a guest registration system and a background check for ensuring a visitor is safe through screening and tracking
(Claim 10) managing visitors to ensure all visitors are safe and monitored while at the community through screening and tracking
(¶ 125 wherein a visitor management system including a guest registration system and a background check for ensuring a visitor is safe through screening and tracking is disclosed).
Coles discloses a system and method comprised of a plurality of systems to track, manage, and report an event to a plurality of users. Although Coles discloses that the system allows users to report an event to the system, Coles fails to explicitly disclose anonymous reporting.
To be more specific, Coles fails to explicitly disclose:
(Claim 1) an anonymous reporting system for providing individual users in the user community with a safe and private means for reporting concerning behavior;
(Claim 10) allowing anonymous reporting by providing individual users in the user community.
However, McDonnell, which is also directed towards providing a system to allow users to report an event, further teaches that it would have been obvious and beneficial to allow for anonymous reporting. McDonnell teaches:
“Persons observing a crime or suspicious activity may or may not be willing to make a voice phone call to an emergency dispatcher. If a criminal is nearby, a person may worry about his or her safety if seen with a phone up to his or her ear. A person leaving a voice call or message with an emergency dispatcher could worry about being implicated or labeled an informer based upon a recording of the reporting becoming public. Statistics show that when a user feels secure that reporting can be done safely and potentially anonymously, the user can be more likely to make the report to authorities.”
(¶ 20; See also: ¶ 19, 21, 22, 25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the incident reporting system and method of Coles with the ability to allow for anonymous reporting, as taught by McDonnell because this would increase the likelihood of an incident being reported because a person would be more willing to submit the report and not worry about implicating themselves, be labeled as an informer, and feel more secure.
In regards to claims 2, 11, the combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses the cloud-based system of claim 1 (the method of claim 10) wherein the community is one of either a school, a business, a facility, a venue, or a campus (Coles – ¶ 6, 115 wherein the community is one of either a school, a business, a facility, a venue, or a campus).
In regards to claims 3, 12, the combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses the cloud-based system of claim 1 (the method of claim 10) wherein the incident management system is configured to predict future incidents using artificial intelligence (AI), wherein the AI is programed to determine a possible or likely next sequence of events based on collected incident events and personal data (Coles – ¶ 72 wherein the system collects information associated with a monitored location and utilizes AI to analyze the information to predict a possible or likely next sequence of events before it occurs).
In regards to claims 4, 5, the combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses the cloud-based system of claim 1 (the method of claim 10) further comprising:
a patrolling management system configured to track and manage patrols or inspections of sites and facilities to ensure community assets are protected (Coles – ¶ 137, 156, 174, 181, 183, 187 wherein a patrolling management system configured to track and manage patrols or inspections of sites and facilities to ensure community assets are protected is disclosed); and
a facility and asset management system configured to manage and monitor facilities and assets
(Coles – Fig. 5, 6A – 6H (and corresponding paragraphs); ¶ 137, 138, 144, 145, 147, 149 wherein a facility and asset management system configured to manage and monitor facilities and assets is disclosed).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses the cloud-based system of claim 1 wherein the communication management system includes:
a mass communication system configured to communicate events, incidents, status updates, or instructions to selected persons within and outside of a school via direct messaging, voice communication, or similar means, wherein the mass communication system is operable to inform parents of school events or health concerns, and to alert students, teachers, and staff of unauthorized intruders;
an emergency notification system configured to alert persons of ongoing or predicted emergencies, wherein the emergency notification system utilizes features of the mass communication system or other communication means to notify students, staff, parents, and emergency responders of emergencies including dangerous weather or armed intruders; and
a broadcasting system configured to stream audio or video information to a publicly or privately accessible server, wherein the broadcasting system is operable to broadcast school programs, events, and camera feeds, and to display important reminders or events to parents
(Coles – ¶ 86, 87, 89, 98, 109, 110, 113, 114 wherein a mass communication system, emergency notification system, and broadcasting system are disclosed to communicate events, incidents, status updates, or instructions to users, e.g., teachers, occupants, students, parents, and emergency responders via a plurality of communication means and wherein the communications can include school events, health and wellbeing concerns (e.g., is the student feeling safe), alerts, ongoing or predicted emergencies, armed intrudes, video feeds, and etc.).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses the cloud-based system of claim 5 wherein the communication management system is configured to update users about school events, bus delays, school closures, and emergencies (Coles – ¶ 86, 87, 89, 98, 109, 110, 113, 114 wherein a mass communication system, emergency notification system, and broadcasting system are disclosed to communicate events, incidents, status updates, or instructions to users, e.g., teachers, occupants, students, parents, and emergency responders via a plurality of communication means and wherein the communications can include school events, health and wellbeing concerns (e.g., is the student feeling safe), alerts, ongoing or predicted emergencies, armed intrudes, video feeds, and etc.
Additionally, the Examiner refers to and incorporates MPEP § 2111.04 and 2111.05 as what is being communicated is directed towards descriptive subject matter describing what the communication is about or what is included in the communication. The information identifying the communications as including “school events, bus delays, school closures, and emergencies” are labels for the content and adds little, if anything, to the claimed invention and, thus, does not serve to distinguish over the prior art. Any differences related merely to the meaning and information conveyed through labels (i.e., what the communication content is about), which does not explicitly alter or impact the steps, structure, or functions of the claimed invention, does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, in terms of patentability).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses the cloud-based system of claim 1 wherein the guest registration system includes a self-service interface for the visitor to provide their relation to or role within the community, contact information, and intended location; and
wherein the self-service interface is configured to provide the visitor with a badge for accessing the facilities
(Coles – ¶ 114, 115, 125 wherein a visitor’s computing device can be temporarily programmed when visiting a building and checking in with a visitor station to provide their role, i.e. visitor, of the community, e.g., school community, so as to serve as an RFID tag (i.e. badge)).
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses the method of claim 10 wherein managing communication includes mass communication with the community, providing emergency notifications, and providing a broadcast system (Coles – ¶ 86, 87, 89, 98, 109, 110, 113, 114 wherein a mass communication system, emergency notification system, and broadcasting system are disclosed to communicate events, incidents, status updates, or instructions to users, e.g., teachers, occupants, students, parents, and emergency responders via a plurality of communication means and wherein the communications can include school events, health and wellbeing concerns (e.g., is the student feeling safe), alerts, ongoing or predicted emergencies, armed intrudes, video feeds, and etc.).
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coles (US PGPub 2020/0225313 A1) in view of McDonnell et al. (US PGPub 2017/0055138 A1) in further view of Kurani et al. (US PGPub 2020/0160690 A1).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses the cloud-based system of claim 1 further comprising:
a safety operation center system for monitoring the community and communicating with law enforcement, the safety operation center system including (Coles – ¶ 86, 87, 89, 98, 109, 110, 113, 114 wherein a mass communication system, emergency notification system, and broadcasting system are disclosed to communicate events, incidents, status updates, or instructions to users, e.g., teachers, occupants, students, parents, and emergency responders via a plurality of communication means and wherein the communications can include school events, health and wellbeing concerns (e.g., is the student feeling safe), alerts, ongoing or predicted emergencies, armed intrudes, video feeds, and etc.):
a sensor system having cameras and weapon detectors (Coles – ¶ 47, 72, 74, 77 wherein a sensor system having cameras and weapon detectors is disclosed); and
a cyber-incident management system configured to monitor the use of community networks, […], and […] (Coles – Fig. 5, 6A – 10B wherein the system includes a cyber-incident management system configured to monitor the use of community networks, e.g., users that are part of and using the network in order to track, manage, and respond to events).
The combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses a system and method for managing incidents and safety of a school that includes a plurality of components for ensuring the wellbeing of users and reporting the status of their wellbeing in response to a plurality of incident types. Despite this, the combination of Coles and McDonnell fails to explicitly disclose all possible types of incidents that such a system can monitor and manage, such as, but not limited to, cyber based incidents.
To be more specific, the combination of Coles and McDonnell fails to explicitly disclose:
a cyber-incident management system configured to monitor the use of community networks, cyber threats, and cyber bullying.
However, Kurani, which is also directed to a system and method for managing incidents and safety of a school and providing a means for a user to report an incident, further teaches that such systems can also include a component for monitoring and managing cyber based incidents, e.g., cyberbullying, which is a type of cyber threat. Kurani teaches that the system receives, stores, and manages information regarding reported cyberbullying incidents in order to identify the root cause of the problem and provide corrective and preventive actions, thereby allowing for a student to feel safe, understand how to handle being bullied, and ensure that the student is not alone during school hours.
(Fig. 17; ¶ 33, 84, 221)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the school monitoring, management, and reporting system of the combination of Coles and McDonnell to expand upon its student wellbeing monitoring component by providing the ability to monitor and handle cyberbullying, as taught by Kurani, because this will allow for a student to feel safe, understand how to handle being bullied, and ensure that the student is not alone during school hours.
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coles (US PGPub 2020/0225313 A1) in view of McDonnell et al. (US PGPub 2017/0055138 A1) in further view of DeVries (US Patent 9,965,819 B1).
In regards to claims 9, 15, the combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses the cloud-based system of claim 8 (method of claim 10) wherein the safety operation center system includes:
[…]; and
a situation awareness system configured to generate heat maps identifying areas currently or historically experiencing unsafe conditions (Coles – ¶ 77, 149, 155, 159, 166 wherein a heat map is provided by the system identifying areas experiencing unsafe conditions).
The combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses a system and method for managing incidents and safety of a school that includes a plurality of components for reporting and ensuring the wellbeing of users, while managing a plurality of incident or event types and monitoring the location of a user for status monitoring and incident management to ensure the wellbeing of a user. Despite this, the combination of Coles and McDonnell fails to explicitly disclose all possible types of incidents or events that such a system can monitor and manage, such as, but not limited to, monitoring usage of vehicles to ensure that a user safely board and de-boards from the vehicles.
To be more specific, the combination of Coles and McDonnell fails to explicitly disclose:
(Claim 9) a ridership management system configured to monitor user usage of community vehicles to ensure that a user safely boards and de-boards from the vehicles;
(Claim 15) generating heat maps for identifying areas currently or historically experiencing unsafe conditions.
However, DeVries, which is also directed towards monitoring students, further teaches a system and method for real-time monitoring of students and school buses that identifies the specific identities of students board and exiting a bus, thereby prevents students from becoming lost by boarding or exiting at the wrong assigned bus stop, identifying the medical needs of a student for correct treatment, monitoring real-time location information in the event of hijacking incident, monitoring students during a trip to account for and not ensure that a student is not left behind, prevent students from being abandoned or left sleeping on the school bus, and real-time location monitoring in the event of a school evacuation to allow administrators to know where students have been taken and the identity of the students on a specific bus to provide parents.
(Abstract; Col. 5 –7 Lines 19 – 7; Col. 8 – 9 Lines 37 – 11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the incident and student monitoring and management system and method of the combination of Coles and McDonnell with the ability to monitor students while boarding and exiting a bus, as taught by DeVries, because it will prevent losing track of a student during an event or incident, inform parents and administrators of a student’s wellbeing, and ensuring that the student’s wellbeing is properly managed.
______________________________________________________________________
Claims 16 – 18, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coles (US PGPub 2020/0225313 A1) in view of McDonnell et al. (US PGPub 2017/0055138 A1) in view of Kurani et al. (US PGPub 2020/0160690 A1) in further view of DeVries (US Patent 9,965,819 B1).
In regards to claim 16, Coles discloses a cloud-based system for facilitating health, safety, and wellness of individuals in a user community, the system comprising:
an incident management system having a centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events, wherein the incident management system is configured to predict future incidents using artificial intelligence (AI), and wherein the AI is programed to determine a possible or likely next sequence of events based on collected incident events and personal data. (¶ 137; Fig. 5, 6A – 6H (with corresponding paragraphs explaining the figures) wherein the system includes an incident management system having a centralized dashboard for collecting, tracking, managing, and responding to events; ¶ 72 wherein the system collects information associated with a monitored location and utilizes AI to analyze the information to predict a possible or likely next sequence of events before it occurs);
a safety alert system including an […] reporting system for allowing users to […] report incidents and an emergency alter system for remotely indicating a user is experiencing an emergency (¶ 160, 174; Fig. 7E wherein a reporting system for providing individual users in the user community with a safe means for reporting concerning behavior is disclosed);
a safety operation center system for monitoring the community and communicating with law enforcement, wherein the safety operation center system includes (¶ 86, 87, 89, 98, 109, 110, 113, 114 wherein a mass communication system, emergency notification system, and broadcasting system are disclosed to communicate events, incidents, status updates, or instructions to users, e.g., teachers, occupants, students, parents, and emergency responders via a plurality of communication means and wherein the communications can include school events, health and wellbeing concerns (e.g., is the student feeling safe), alerts, ongoing or predicted emergencies, armed intrudes, video feeds, and etc.):
a cyber-incident management system configured to monitor the use of community networks, […], and […] (Fig. 5, 6A – 10B wherein the system includes a cyber-incident management system configured to monitor the use of community networks, e.g., users that are part of and using the network in order to track, manage, and respond to events); and
[…].
Coles discloses a system and method comprised of a plurality of systems to track, manage, and report an event to a plurality of users. Although Coles discloses that the system allows users to report an event to the system, Coles fails to explicitly disclose anonymous reporting.
To be more specific, Coles fails to explicitly disclose:
a safety alert system including an anonymous reporting system for allowing users to anonymously report incidents and an emergency alter system for remotely indicating a user is experiencing an emergency
However, McDonnell, which is also directed towards providing a system to allow users to report an event, further teaches that it would have been obvious and beneficial to allow for anonymous reporting. McDonnell teaches:
“Persons observing a crime or suspicious activity may or may not be willing to make a voice phone call to an emergency dispatcher. If a criminal is nearby, a person may worry about his or her safety if seen with a phone up to his or her ear. A person leaving a voice call or message with an emergency dispatcher could worry about being implicated or labeled an informer based upon a recording of the reporting becoming public. Statistics show that when a user feels secure that reporting can be done safely and potentially anonymously, the user can be more likely to make the report to authorities.”
(¶ 20; See also: ¶ 19, 21, 22, 25)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the incident reporting system and method of Coles with the ability to allow for anonymous reporting, as taught by McDonnell because this would increase the likelihood of an incident being reported because a person would be more willing to submit the report and not worry about implicating themselves, be labeled as an informer, and feel more secure.
The combination of Coles and McDonnell discloses a system and method for managing incidents and safety of a school that includes a plurality of components for ensuring the wellbeing of users and reporting the status of their wellbeing in response to a plurality of incident types. Despite this, the combination of Coles and McDonnell fails to explicitly disclose all possible types of incidents that such a system can monitor and manage, such as, but not limited to, cyber based incidents.
To be more specific, the combination of Coles and McDonnell fails to explicitly disclose:
a cyber-incident management system configured to monitor the use of community networks, cyber threats, and cyber bullying.
However, Kurani, which is also directed to a system and method for managing incidents and safety of a school and providing a means for a user to report an incident, further teaches that such systems can also include a component for monitoring and managing cyber based incidents, e.g., cyberbullying, which is a type of cyber threat. Kurani teaches that the system receives, stores, and manages information regarding reported cyberbullying incidents in order to identify the root cause of the problem and provide corrective and preventive actions, thereby allowing for a student to feel safe, understand how to handle being bullied, and ensure that the student is not alone during school hours.
(Fig. 17; ¶ 33, 84, 221)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the school monitoring, management, and reporting system of the combination of Coles and McDonnell to expand upon its student wellbeing monitoring component by providing the ability to monitor and handle cyberbullying, as taught by Kurani, because this will allow for a student to feel safe, understand how to handle being bullied, and ensure that the student is not alone during school hours.
The combination of Coles, McDonnell, and Kurani discloses a system and method for managing incidents and safety of a school that includes a plurality of components for reporting and ensuring the wellbeing of users, while managing a plurality of incident or event types and monitoring the location of a user for status monitoring and incident management to ensure the wellbeing of a user. Despite this, the combination of Coles, McDonnell, and Kurani fails to explicitly disclose all possible types of incidents or events that such a system can monitor and manage, such as, but not limited to, monitoring usage of vehicles to ensure that a user safely board and de-boards from the vehicles.
To be more specific, the combination of Coles, McDonnell, and Kurani fails to explicitly disclose:
a ridership management system configured to monitor user usage of community vehicles to ensure that a user safely boards and de-boards from the vehicles.
However, DeVries, which is also directed towards monitoring students, further teaches a system and method for real-time monitoring of students and school buses that identifies the specific identities of students board and exiting a bus, thereby prevents students from becoming lost by boarding or exiting at the wrong assigned bus stop, identifying the medical needs of a student for correct treatment, monitoring real-time location information in the event of hijacking incident, monitoring students during a trip to account for and not ensure that a student is not left behind, prevent students from being abandoned or left sleeping on the school bus, and real-time location monitoring in the event of a school evacuation to allow administrators to know where students have been taken and the identity of the students on a specific bus to provide parents.
(Abstract; Col. 5 –7 Lines 19 – 7; Col. 8 – 9 Lines 37 – 11)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the incident and student monitoring and management system and method of the combination of Coles, McDonnell, and Kurani with the ability to monitor students while boarding and exiting a bus, as taught by DeVries, because it will prevent losing track of a student during an event or incident, inform parents and administrators of a student’s wellbeing, and ensuring that the student’s wellbeing is properly managed.
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Coles, McDonnell, Kurani, and DeVries discloses the cloud-based system of claim 16 wherein the safety operation center system includes a situation awareness system configured to generate heat maps identifying areas currently or historically experiencing unsafe conditions (Coles – ¶ 77, 149, 155, 159, 166 wherein a heat map is provided by the system identifying areas experiencing unsafe conditions).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Coles, McDonnell, Kurani, and DeVries discloses the cloud-based system of claim 16 further comprising a health and wellness system configured to securely manage student health and wellbeing (Coles – ¶ 86, 87, 89, 98, 109, 110, 113, 114, 125 wherein a mass communication system, emergency notification system, and broadcasting system are disclosed to communicate events, incidents, status updates, or instructions to users, e.g., teachers, occupants, students, parents, and emergency responders via a plurality of communication means and wherein the communications can include school events, health and wellbeing concerns (e.g., is the student feeling safe), alerts, ongoing or predicted emergencies, armed intrudes, video feeds, and etc. and wherein the system securely manages the system and information conveyed by requiring login information and/or background checks).
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Coles, McDonnell, Kurani, and DeVries discloses the cloud-based system of claim 18 furthering comprising a classroom observation management system configured to collect and monitor all data points involving performance metrics of staff and of a school (Coles – Fig. 5, 6A – 6H (and corresponding paragraphs) wherein a classroom observation management system configured to collect and monitor all data points involving performance metrics of staff and of a school is disclosed).
______________________________________________________________________
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coles (US PGPub 2020/0225313 A1) in view of McDonnell et al. (US PGPub 2017/0055138 A1) in view of Kurani et al. (US PGPub 2020/0160690 A1) in view of DeVries (US Patent 9,965,819 B1) in further view of Reynolds et al. (Telehealth in the School Setting An Integrative Review).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Coles, McDonnell, Kurani, and DeVries discloses a system and method for managing incidents and safety of a school and its occupants, e.g., students, to report and ensure the wellbeing of its occupants. Despite this, the combination of Coles, McDonnell, Kurani, and DeVries fails to explicitly disclose all possible types of services that a school can utilize to manage the wellbeing of students.
To be more specific, the combination of Coles, McDonnell, Kurani, and DeVries fails to explicitly disclose:
the cloud-based system of claim 18 wherein the health and wellness system includes telehealth services.
However, Reynolds teaches that telehealth is a tool that can be used by school nurses to address and improve the health status of schoolchildren. Reynolds further teaches that schools play an important role in the role in the health of children and a school nurse functions as a leader and coordinator of the health care provided to students and to assist with this one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious and been motivated to incorporate telehealth services in order to resolve the unfortunate issue that many schools lack the resources necessary to meet the health needs of their students. Reynolds teaches that telehealth services provide many features that can assist in monitoring, managing, and improving the wellbeing of students, such as, but not limited to, improving the health status of students by reducing the number of medical incidents, fewer hospitalizations, improvement in behavior, improved collaboration, help parents connect with community resources, reduced absenteeism, improved convenience for school staff while continuing to provide quality care, health education, cost-effectiveness. One of ordinary skill in the art looking upon the teachings of Reynolds would have found it beneficial to incorporate telehealth services into the system and method of the combination of Coles, McDonnell, Kurani, and DeVries, which already provides the necessary technological infrastructure for monitoring the wellbeing of students, as this would further expand upon the existing capabilities of the combination of Coles, McDonnell, Kurani, and DeVries and further improve upon how a student can be cared for, thereby improving the overall health of students by providing improved access to care, better management of chronic conditions, improved education, reduced travel time and expenses, fewer absences from school and work, and allowing school nurses to further meet the health needs of underserved children through improved care in an innovative and efficient way.
(Pages 1 – 2, 10 – 14, 18)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate into the school and student wellbeing monitoring and management system of the combination of Coles, McDonnell, Kurani, and DeVries with the ability to include telehealth services, as taught by Reynolds, because it will improve the overall health of students by providing improved access to care, better management of chronic conditions, improved education, reduced travel time and expenses, fewer absences from school and work, and allowing school nurses to further meet the health needs of underserved children through improved care in an innovative and efficient way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited.
Lisi Dominick et al. (WO 2025/184732 A1); Bland et al. (US PGPub 202/0211962 A1); Cabanas et al. (US PGPub 2023/0066525 A1); Biegel et al. (US PGPub 2022/0279331 A1); Polinski et al. (US PGPub 2021/0271894 A1); Davis et al. (US PGPub 2020/0381006 A1); Pellegrini et al. (US PGPub 2019/0380020 A1); Horelik et al. (US PGPub 2019/0320310 A1); Barzman et al. (US PGPub 2019/0266912 A1); Mehta et al. (US PGPub 2017/0251347 A1); Hill (US PGPub 2017/0243479 A1); Noland et al. (US PGPub 2016/0232774 1); Robinette et al. (US PGPub 2014/0240088 A1); Jones, JR., et al. (US PGPub 2014/0139684 A1); Martin et al. (WO 2019/113129 A1); Schobel (WO 2015/038476 A1); Ferraro et al. (WO 2017/127881 A2); Sloo (US Patent 7,379,789 B1); Bhimani et al. (US Patent 6,807,569 B1); Saigh et al. (US PGPub 2017/0253330 A1); Lakshmanan et al. (US PGPub 2015/0278733 A1); Schobel (US PGPub 2014/0310191 A1); Fadell et al. (US PGPub 2014/0266669 A1); Gifford et al. (US PGPub 2014/046863 A1); Webb (US PGPub 2014/0040154 A1); Jones-McFadden (US Patent 12,080,148 B1); Smoothwall (Smoothwall by Quoria); Levin (Introducing the K-12 Cyber Incident Map Version 2) – which are directed to systems and methods for managing risk, incidents, events, and the like at a location utilizing a computer infrastructure that monitors and collects information from devices and users to determine the state of a site and/or user and taking appropriate actions or evaluations
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERARDO ARAQUE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4:30.
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.
GERARDO ARAQUE JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3629
/GERARDO ARAQUE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629 2/6/2026