DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by O’Brien et al. (US 12416500 B1).
In regard to claim 1, O’Brien teaches a system, comprising: a processor (O’Brien, Fig. 2; Col. 5, lines 51-60, the user device 210 may include provisions for communicating with, and processing information from, nearby devices, user device 210 may include one or more processors 220 and memory 230); and a memory that stores executable instructions that, when executed by the processor of the system, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: obtaining, from each safety monitor of a plurality of safety monitors registered in a data store (O’Brien, Col. 5, lines 36-50, user device 210 and/or the plurality of devices may also be connected to one or more of a stationary internet of things (IoT) device(s) (“smart sensors”) 290. Smart sensors 290 could comprise any of a variety of different IoT devices, such as one or more of a pressure sensor 291, chemical sensor 292 (for detecting smoke, carbon monoxide or other chemical compositions), temperature sensor 293, magnetometer 294, smoke/flame detectors 295, moisture sensor 296, electrostatic sensor 297, volume/sound sensors, light sensors, aerosol characterization sensors, and other smart devices that may include one or more sensors), a status of a self-diagnostic performed by the safety monitor (O’Brien, Col. 4, lines 41-63, , The smart device extracts a sound anomaly signal and sends it to a database, where the sound anomaly signal is compared to predetermined anomaly signals stored in a database wherein the predetermined anomaly signals are associated with diagnostic information), wherein a tag is assigned to each safety monitor denoting a room within a structure that the safety monitor is located (O’Brien, Col. 7, lines 1-10, each device can be assigned a particular room in a home, such that the profile for first device 202 indicates its position in the living room, second device 204 in the dining room, third device 206 in the kitchen, fourth device 207 in the bedroom, and fourth device 208 in the hallway), and wherein each safety monitor has a unique electronic identifier (O’Brien, Col. 8, lines 29-50, one or more of the devices may include an RFID tag to generate location information); monitoring, based on the obtaining, a presence of an occupant within an area of the structure via at least a first safety monitor of the plurality of safety monitors (O’Brien, Col. 12, lines 1-20, in some embodiments in which the beacons are able to receive real-time inputs from nearby users (e.g., via voice or other commands), a user may be able to tell the beacon that they are trapped in a particular room and transmit a more specific call for help. In FIG. 9, an example of an automatically generated map is shown that may be transmitted to emergency responders and/or family or friends designated as emergency contacts by the user. Thus, if the user tells the system that he is trapped in the master bedroom closest to ninth device 468, a help request 910 may be automatically generated by the system); detecting an evacuation event (O’Brien, Col. 9, lines 41-49, in the event that an emergency situation is identified, network devices may receive sensed information from nearby smart devices such as smoke detector 540 or other devices arranged throughout the house, and determine that a navigation session is warranted); and identifying, based on the detecting, an evacuation route for the occupant in accordance with the monitoring (O’Brien, Figs. 5-7; Col. 13, lines 4-36, the beacon devices may be configured to receive voice commands from an end-user during the navigation process to request a re-routing in the case that the end-user encounters difficulty while attempting to move along through the first suggested route), the evacuation route including a first waypoint and a second waypoint (O’Brien, Fig. 6, location of each beacon would be the waypoints), wherein a second safety monitor of the plurality of safety monitors associated with the first waypoint notifies a third safety monitor of the plurality of safety monitors associated with the second waypoint that the occupant reaches the second safety monitor (O’Brien, Figs. 6; Col. 11, 26-37, user 300 may reach the stairwell landing in FIG. 6 near first device 450 and say “Beacon 1, OFF” or some other command or manual interaction to mute the device and allow the user 300 to better hear the next beacon. This can also allow the system to track the progress of the user through the house. Such a system is preferred in situations in which users do not have their own mobile devices, have been separated from such devices, and/or have removed their wearable smart devices).
In regard to claim 2, O’Brien teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the detecting is based on an output of at least one safety monitor of the plurality of safety monitors (O’Brien, Col. 11, 38-56, with the aid of information collected by local stationary IoT devices arranged in the home. For example, during a fire, the system could receive information from a smart smoke sensor. The system can determine which smoke sensor is nearest to the source of fire and use that information to infer that the room where that smoke detector is located must be avoided. If that room includes the primary exit, the system can move to the next listed exit).
In regard to claim 3, O’Brien teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the at least one safety monitor includes a second plurality of safety monitors, wherein the second plurality of safety monitors is included in the plurality of safety monitors, and wherein the detecting is based on a use of a respective sensor included in each safety monitor of the second plurality of safety monitors (O’Brien, Fig. 2, Smart sensors 290 could comprise any of a variety of different IoT devices; Col. 5, lines 36-50, Smart sensors 290 could comprise any of a variety of different IoT devices, such as one or more of a pressure sensor 291, chemical sensor 292 (for detecting smoke, carbon monoxide or other chemical compositions), temperature sensor 293, magnetometer 294, smoke/flame detectors 295, moisture sensor 296, electrostatic sensor 297, volume/sound sensors, light sensors, aerosol characterization sensors, and other smart devices that may include one or more sensors).
In regard to claim 4, O’Brien teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: rendering first guidance data associated with the evacuation route (O’Brien, Fig. 5; Col. 9, lines 61-67, the system triggers a pre-selected audio alert that is emitted from some or all of the devices in the device network. In FIG. 6, sixth device 460 begins to automatically emit a loud, repeating first audio output 560 (<* ALARM Type 1*> “This is Beacon 6 in Bedroom A. Your nearest safe exit is via Dining Room. Proceed toward stairs now via Beacon 1”<* ALARM Type 1*>)).
In regard to claim 6, O’Brien teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the rendering involves audio data (O’Brien, Col. 9, lines 61-67, the system triggers a pre-selected audio alert that is emitted from some or all of the devices in the device network).
In regard to claim 9, O’Brien teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the identifying of the evacuation route comprises selecting the first waypoint of the evacuation route based on determining an inaccessibility, by the occupant, to a candidate point of the evacuation route, and wherein the candidate point of the evacuation route is not the first waypoint or the second waypoint (O”Brien, Figs. 5-7, Col. 11, lines 38-56, The system can determine which smoke sensor is nearest to the source of fire and use that information to infer that the room where that smoke detector is located must be avoided. If that room includes the primary exit, the system can move to the next listed exit. For example, if in the scenario of FIGS. 6 and 7 the fire was instead located in the dining room (where exit 640 is located), the system can instead direct the user 300 toward the front door to better avoid the fire; Therefore, in this scenario, location of the beacon 2 in the dining room is the candidate point; Location of the beacon 1 on the stairwell and location of the front door are first and second waypoints).
In regard to claim 10, O’Brien teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the identifying comprises determining that a candidate point of the evacuation route is inaccessible to the occupant, the operations further comprising: selecting the second waypoint of the evacuation route in response to the determining that the candidate point of the evacuation route is inaccessible ((O”Brien, Figs. 6, Col. 9, lines 50-67, a temperature sensor located near the downstairs kitchen has received data that the system uses to determine an emergency situation is occurring and an evacuation is warranted. In this case, the system triggers a pre-selected audio alert that is emitted from some or all of the devices in the device network. In FIG. 6, sixth device 460 begins to automatically emit a loud, repeating first audio output 560 (<* ALARM Type 1*> “This is Beacon 6 in Bedroom A. Your nearest safe exit is via Dining Room; Therefore, in this case, the candidate point would be the front door close to the kitchen; and the second waypoint is the location of the beacon 2 in the dining room/ rear exit 640 that is selected based on the location of the fire).
In regard to claim 11, O’Brien teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: outputting progress data to a device of an entity other than the occupant, the progress data representing progress of the occupant along the evacuation route (O’Brien, Fig. 9; Col. 12, 1-20, in some embodiments in which the beacons are able to receive real-time inputs from nearby users (e.g., via voice or other commands), a user may be able to tell the beacon that they are trapped in a particular room and transmit a more specific call for help. In FIG. 9, an example of an automatically generated map is shown that may be transmitted to emergency responders and/or family or friends designated as emergency contacts by the user. Thus, if the user tells the system that he is trapped in the master bedroom closest to ninth device 468, a help request 910 may be automatically generated by the system. In some cases, the request can include an overview or map 900 of the home that pinpoints the location in which the request was received).
In regard to claim 12, O’Brien teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: rendering guidance data representative of guidance to a responder to the evacuation event other than the occupant (O’Brien, Fig. 9; Col. 12, 1-20, in some embodiments in which the beacons are able to receive real-time inputs from nearby users (e.g., via voice or other commands), a user may be able to tell the beacon that they are trapped in a particular room and transmit a more specific call for help. In FIG. 9, an example of an automatically generated map is shown that may be transmitted to emergency responders and/or family or friends designated as emergency contacts by the user. Thus, if the user tells the system that he is trapped in the master bedroom closest to ninth device 468, a help request 910 may be automatically generated by the system. In some cases, the request can include an overview or map 900 of the home that pinpoints the location in which the request was received).
In regard to claim 13, In regard to claim 13, O’Brien teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the occupant is a first occupant, wherein the second waypoint is proximate to an evacuation location, and wherein the operations further comprise: rendering guidance data representative of guidance to a second occupant to guide the second occupant to the second waypoint (O’Brien, Col. 12, lines 1-20, once a beacon is triggered in such a manner, one or more other beacons in the house can begin to emit a new message (such as, for example, a sixth audio output 968<* ALARM Type 5*> “ALERT!!! Person trapped in Bedroom 1, near Beacon 9”), so that other occupants can become immediately aware of the person's request; therefore, the system is rendering guidance data to all the occupants in the house.
In regard to claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2 as stated above.
In regard to claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 3 as stated above.
In regard to claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 4 as stated above.
In regard to claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2 as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (US 12416500 B1) in view of Jeong et al. (US 20230145066 A1).
In regard to claim 5, O’Brien do not teach the system of claim 4, wherein the rendering involves a use of smart glasses or a virtual reality device.
However, Jeong teaches wherein the rendering involves a use of smart glasses or a virtual reality device (Jeong, Fig. 4, Para. 45, The mobile device 100 may be a wearable computing device such as smart glasses 30 or a head-mounted display in various embodiments. The smart glasses 30 type mobile device 100 may have a display system that includes glasses transmitting the light for the user to see the surrounding physical space while the user wears the glasses and displaying virtual content (in the embodiment, various types of augmented reality-based information) in the user's field of view; Para. 69-70, the evacuation guidance interface 110 may display movement direction guide information superimposed on the landscape image in the image display area 111 based on the location information of the mobile device 100 and the inclination angle information of the mobile device 100. For example, the evacuation guidance interface 110 may guide a movement direction for the user by displaying a route to be followed from the current location of the mobile device 100 along an evacuation route using a means such as an arrow symbol).
O’Brien and Jeong are analogous art because they both pertain to providing evacuation route guidance.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate smart glasses to the system of O’Brien (as taught by Jeong) resulting in predictable result of transmitting the light for the user to see the surrounding physical space while the user wears the glasses and displaying virtual content (in the embodiment, various types of augmented reality-based information) in the user's field of view.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Brien (US 12416500 B1) in view of Paripally et al. (US 20230009081 A1).
In regard to claim 14, O’Brien does not teach the system of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: detecting that the first occupant has reached the evacuation location and in response to the detecting that the first occupant has reached the evacuation location, outputting status information to a device of the second occupant indicating that the first occupant has reached the evacuation location.
However, Paripally teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise: detecting that the first occupant has reached the evacuation location (Paripally, Fig. 1, Egress 104; Para. 31, evacuation guidance component 315 may determine whether person 112 was detected by sensor 106 (e.g., a security camera) and seen exiting environment 102. In response to determining that the person evacuated); and in response to the detecting that the first occupant has reached the evacuation location, outputting status information to a device of the second occupant indicating that the first occupant has reached the evacuation location (Paripally, Para. 36, the alert is sent to one or more of: the person, an emergency contact of the person (e.g., friend, relative, etc.); Para. 51, transmitting the list of the plurality of persons and each evacuation status to a device of emergency unit personnel).
O’Brien and Paripally are analogous art because they both pertain to providing evacuation guidance paths to occupants.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect occupant at the emergency exit (as taught by Paripally) resulting in predictable result of determining whether the occupants have evacuated the environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 7-8, Derickson (US 20210158670 A1) teaches Occupant movement information and information about known occupants may be used by the central monitoring system 410 to tailor guidance to users in the house 400. For example, an emergency plan, which may have been partially generated by the central monitoring system 410 and manually edited by user(s) in the house 400, may indicate that a child under the age of six generally sleeps in a particular bedroom. The central monitoring system 410 may, based on this information and based on movement detection in that bedroom during an emergency, generate an audio message to be played in other rooms that indicates that the child may still be in the particular bedroom and may need assistance. Similar guidance may be performed if elderly or disabled users are in the house 400 (Para. 73) but does not teach wherein the audio data comprises specific name data representative of a name corresponding to an identity of a second occupant. Therefore, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 W Goins can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights