Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Under Step 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must first be determined whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Applying Step 1 to the claims it is determined that: claims 1-7 are directed to a process; and claims 8-20 are directed to a machine if amended as suggested.
Independent Claims
Under Step 2A Prong 1 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the claims recite an abstract idea that falls within one or more designated categories or “buckets” of patent ineligible subject matter that amount to a judicial exception to patentability.
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, all the limitations of independent claim 1 recites an abstract idea because all the limitations of claim 1 encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. following rules or instructions). These limitations encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. following rules or instructions) because analyzing the physical characters of an environment and recommending modifications to enhance safety encompasses following rules and instructions (i.e. assessing risk based on existing laws, regulations, policies, etc. and recommending risk mitigations). Claims that encompass managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people fall with the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity". Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong 2 of the patent eligibility analysis, it must be determined whether the identified, recited abstract idea includes additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements. Claims 8 and 15 recite the additional elements “computer readable storage mediums having program code embodied therewith” and “a memory for storing a computer program for assessing and enhancing safety and functionality of environments for aging populations; and a processor connected to the memory”, respectively. These additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B of the patent eligibility analysis, the additional elements are evaluated to determine whether they amount to something “significantly more” than the recited abstract idea (i.e., an innovative concept).
The independent claims either do not include additional elements or 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, there are no additional elements or the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 8, and 15 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims are rejected under 35 USC 101 as directed to an abstract idea for the following reasons.
Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-18 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because all the limitations of claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-18 encompass analyzing the environment for safety and providing corresponding recommendations.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19 and 20 recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims because assigning weights to calculate a composite score, using threshold and analyzing lighting safety is a part of analyzing the environment for safety.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brooks, US Pub. No. 2008/0189166, herein referred to as “Brooks”.
Regarding claim 1, Brooks teaches:
receiving a description of physical characteristics of an environment (collects data about residential property, e.g., ¶¶[0114]-[0117], and commercial property, e.g., ¶[0135]; see also Tb.1 listing various aspects being evaluated);
analyzing said description of physical characteristics of said environment against a set of environment design rules tailored for aging populations and individuals with cognitive impairment (evaluates data about residential property for aging people, e.g., ¶¶[0108], [0112]-[0113], and commercial property ¶[0136])
wherein said set of environment design rules is structured guidelines and criteria (rules are for aging populations and based on US laws, codes, and standards, ¶¶[0011]-[0016] and [0021]-[0025])
used to systematically arrange, specify, or modify physical and spatial characteristics of said environment to optimize its safety, functionality, accessibility, and psychological impact for a specified group (process modifies residential and commercial properties for safety, accessibility, functionality and quality of life, ¶¶[0108]-[0109], [0135]-[0136])
and generating one or more recommendations for modifying said environment based on said analysis (generates recommendations to modify the residential and commercial properties, ¶¶[0109], [0137]),
wherein said one or more recommendations enhance safety and functionality of said environment by adjusting one or more of the following: wayfinding elements, visual cues, color contrast and visibility, and lighting conditions (recommendations involve improving lighting pathway, Tbl. 1, p. 12 Pathway Section, analyzed data includes visual cues, ¶[0141], and recommendations include contrasting colors, ¶[0115] and Tbl. 1, pgs. 12-13 Accessible or Primary Entrance Door Section).
Regarding claim 2, Brooks teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
determining a light reflective value contrast between at least two adjacent surfaces within said environment; and comparing said determined light reflective value contrast against a threshold value specified in said set of environment design rules for features to identify deficiencies in visibility, wherein said features comprise one or more of the following: doorways, handrails, and bathroom fixtures (collected data includes colors and contrasts, ¶[0115], recommendations include handrails are a contrasting color, Tbl. 1, pgs. 12-13 Accessible or Primary Entrance Door Section, pg. 13 Types of Ramps: Portable and Stationary Section).
Regarding claim 3, Brooks teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein said one or more recommendations comprise a recommendation for placement of personalized memory cues at a specific location within said environment (collected data includes clear signage, symbols and pictograms, ¶[0141] and recommendations include storing important documents in safe location, Tbl. 1, pg. 17, Emergency Evacuation Preparedness Section).
Regarding claim 4, Brooks teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein said analysis of said description of physical characteristics of said environment against said set of environment design rules tailored for aging populations and individuals with cognitive impairment comprises: analyzing flooring characteristics in said description of physical characteristics of said environment including pattern complexity, reflectivity, and non-slip rating, against said set of environment design rules (analyzed data includes color contrast for walls, ¶[0115] and at steps, ¶[0141] and slippery restrooms, ¶[0141] and contrast between handrails and the walls and covering on the stairs, Tbl. 1, pg. 13, Interior Stairs Section);
and determining consistency of flooring transitions across different areas of said environment to minimize perceived hazards for individuals with depth perception issues based on said analysis of said flooring characteristics against said set of environment design rules (recommendations include color contrast and brightening flooring, Tbl. 1, pg. 14 Kitchen Assessment and Recommendations; and contrast between handrails and the walls and covering on the stairs, Tbl. 1, pg. 13, Interior Stairs Section; see also Tbl. 2 discussing low vision/blindness).
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) 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brooks in view of Kwatra et al. US Pub. No. 2022/0067547, herein referred to as “Kwatra”.
Regarding claim 5, Brooks teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein said set of environment design rules is directed to safety categories of wayfinding, color contrast and lighting, wherein said analysis of said description of physical characteristics of said environment against said set of environment design rules tailored for aging populations and individuals with cognitive impairment comprises (analysis includes accessible pathways, ¶[0110], color contrast and lighting, ¶[0115]):
and generating said one or more recommendations for modifying said environment based on said single, composite score (generates recommendations to modify the residential and commercial properties, ¶¶[0109], [0137]).
However Brooks does not teach but Kwatra does teach:
assigning a weighted score to said environment for each safety category based on a predefined weighting scheme derived from clinical or design research (assigns weights to different environmental components, ¶¶[0054]-[0056], [0062]; see also e.g., ¶[0068] discussing predicting risks for the elderly)
calculating a single, composite score by aggregating said weighted scores (weights are multiple by vectors of components and added together, ¶[0054])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the risk assessment and modification recommendation of Brooks with the machine learning based risk assessment of Kwatra because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the risk prediction and mitigation Brooks would likely be improved by incorporating or augmenting it with a machine learning based analysis, e.g., as taught by Kwatra.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Kwatra further teaches:
wherein said one or more recommendations comprise a corrective action for addressing a deficiency in one of said safety categories in response to a value of said single, composite score falling below a threshold value within a user-designated variance (if the risk score is above a threshold performs risk mitigation strategy, ¶[0094] and Fig. 3).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the risk assessment and modification recommendation of Brooks with the machine learning based risk assessment of Kwatra because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the risk prediction and mitigation Brooks would likely be improved by incorporating or augmenting it with a machine learning based analysis, e.g., as taught by Kwatra.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and Brooks further teaches:
wherein said lighting safety category of said set of environment design rules comprises ambient light levels throughout a space of said environment to ensure adequate illumination for safe navigation and potential sources of glare or shadow of said environment that cause confusion by individuals with cognitive impairment (analyzed data includes lighting, e g., ¶[0115] and Tbl. 1, pg. 12 Pathway Section, pg. 13, Interior Stairs Section),
wherein said one or more recommendations comprise a corrective action for adjusting a type or location of a lighting fixture to achieve a consistent, shadow-minimizing illumination (provides non-glare accessible lighting, Tbl. 1, pg. 13, Interior Stairs Section, and recommends multiple sources of lighting, Tbl. 1, pg. 14, General Items Assessment and Recommendations).
Regarding claim 8, Brooks teaches:
receiving a description of physical characteristics of an environment (collects data about residential property, e.g., ¶¶[0114]-[0117], and commercial property, e.g., ¶[0135]; see also Tb.1 listing various aspects being evaluated);
analyzing said description of physical characteristics of said environment against a set of environment design rules tailored for aging populations and individuals with cognitive impairment (evaluates data about residential property for aging people, e.g., ¶¶[0108], [0112]-[0113], and commercial property ¶[0136])
wherein said set of environment design rules is structured guidelines and criteria (rules are for aging populations and based on US laws, codes, and standards, ¶¶[0011]-[0016] and [0021]-[0025])
used to systematically arrange, specify, or modify physical and spatial characteristics of said environment to optimize its safety, functionality, accessibility, and psychological impact for a specified group (process modifies residential and commercial properties for safety, accessibility, functionality and quality of life, ¶¶[0108]-[0109], [0135]-[0136])
and generating one or more recommendations for modifying said environment based on said analysis (generates recommendations to modify the residential and commercial properties, ¶¶[0109], [0137]),
wherein said one or more recommendations enhance safety and functionality of said environment by adjusting one or more of the following: wayfinding elements, visual cues, color contrast and visibility, and lighting conditions (recommendations involve improving lighting pathway, Tbl. 1, p. 12 Pathway Section, analyzed data includes visual cues, ¶[0141], and recommendations include contrasting colors, ¶[0115] and Tbl. 1, pgs. 12-13 Accessible or Primary Entrance Door Section).
However Brooks does not explicitly teach but Kwatra does teach:
one or more computer readable storage mediums having program code embodied therewith, the program code comprising programming instructions for (computer readable storage media and instructions, e.g. ¶¶[0128]-[0130] and Fig. 4):
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine risk assessment and modification recommendation of Brooks with the computer components of Kwatra because Brooks explicitly teaches the system is computer based, ¶[0026]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and Brooks further teaches:
determining a light reflective value contrast between at least two adjacent surfaces within said environment; and comparing said determined light reflective value contrast against a threshold value specified in said set of environment design rules for features to identify deficiencies in visibility, wherein said features comprise one or more of the following: doorways, handrails, and bathroom fixtures (collected data includes colors and contrasts, ¶[0115], recommendations include handrails are a contrasting color, Tbl. 1, pgs. 12-13 Accessible or Primary Entrance Door Section, pg. 13 Types of Ramps: Portable and Stationary Section).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and Brooks further teaches:
wherein said one or more recommendations comprise a recommendation for placement of personalized memory cues at a specific location within said environment (collected data includes clear signage, symbols and pictograms, ¶[0141] and recommendations include storing important documents in safe location, Tbl. 1, pg. 17, Emergency Evacuation Preparedness Section).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and Brooks further teaches:
wherein said analysis of said description of physical characteristics of said environment against said set of environment design rules tailored for aging populations and individuals with cognitive impairment comprises: analyzing flooring characteristics in said description of physical characteristics of said environment including pattern complexity, reflectivity, and non-slip rating, against said set of environment design rules (analyzed data includes color contrast for walls, ¶[0115] and at steps, ¶[0141] and slippery restrooms, ¶[0141] and contrast between handrails and the walls and covering on the stairs, Tbl. 1, pg. 13, Interior Stairs Section);
and determining consistency of flooring transitions across different areas of said environment to minimize perceived hazards for individuals with depth perception issues based on said analysis of said flooring characteristics against said set of environment design rules (recommendations include color contrast and brightening flooring, Tbl. 1, pg. 14 Kitchen Assessment and Recommendations; and contrast between handrails and the walls and covering on the stairs, Tbl. 1, pg. 13, Interior Stairs Section; see also Tbl. 2 discussing low vision/blindness).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 8 and Brooks further teaches:
wherein said set of environment design rules is directed to safety categories of wayfinding, color contrast and lighting, wherein said analysis of said description of physical characteristics of said environment against said set of environment design rules tailored for aging populations and individuals with cognitive impairment comprises (analysis includes accessible pathways, ¶[0110], color contrast and lighting, ¶[0115]):
and generating said one or more recommendations for modifying said environment based on said single, composite score (generates recommendations to modify the residential and commercial properties, ¶¶[0109], [0137]).
However Brooks does not teach but Kwatra does teach:
assigning a weighted score to said environment for each safety category based on a predefined weighting scheme derived from clinical or design research (assigns weights to different environmental components, ¶¶[0054]-[0056], [0062]; see also e.g., ¶[0068] discussing predicting risks for the elderly)
calculating a single, composite score by aggregating said weighted scores (weights are multiple by vectors of components and added together, ¶[0054])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the risk assessment and modification recommendation of Brooks with the machine learning based risk assessment of Kwatra because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the risk prediction and mitigation Brooks would likely be improved by incorporating or augmenting it with a machine learning based analysis, e.g., as taught by Kwatra.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Kwatra further teaches:
wherein said one or more recommendations comprise a corrective action for addressing a deficiency in one of said safety categories in response to a value of said single, composite score falling below a threshold value within a user-designated variance (if the risk score is above a threshold performs risk mitigation strategy, ¶[0094] and Fig. 3).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the risk assessment and modification recommendation of Brooks with the machine learning based risk assessment of Kwatra because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the risk prediction and mitigation Brooks would likely be improved by incorporating or augmenting it with a machine learning based analysis, e.g., as taught by Kwatra.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 12 and Brooks further teaches:
wherein said lighting safety category of said set of environment design rules comprises ambient light levels throughout a space of said environment to ensure adequate illumination for safe navigation and potential sources of glare or shadow of said environment that cause confusion by individuals with cognitive impairment (analyzed data includes lighting, e g., ¶[0115] and Tbl. 1, pg. 12 Pathway Section, pg. 13, Interior Stairs Section),
wherein said one or more recommendations comprise a corrective action for adjusting a type or location of a lighting fixture to achieve a consistent, shadow-minimizing illumination (provides non-glare accessible lighting, Tbl. 1, pg. 13, Interior Stairs Section, and recommends multiple sources of lighting, Tbl. 1, pg. 14, General Items Assessment and Recommendations).
Regarding claim 15, Brooks teaches:
receiving a description of physical characteristics of an environment (collects data about residential property, e.g., ¶¶[0114]-[0117], and commercial property, e.g., ¶[0135]; see also Tb.1 listing various aspects being evaluated);
analyzing said description of physical characteristics of said environment against a set of environment design rules tailored for aging populations and individuals with cognitive impairment (evaluates data about residential property for aging people, e.g., ¶¶[0108], [0112]-[0113], and commercial property ¶[0136])
wherein said set of environment design rules is structured guidelines and criteria (rules are for aging populations and based on US laws, codes, and standards, ¶¶[0011]-[0016] and [0021]-[0025])
used to systematically arrange, specify, or modify physical and spatial characteristics of said environment to optimize its safety, functionality, accessibility, and psychological impact for a specified group (process modifies residential and commercial properties for safety, accessibility, functionality and quality of life, ¶¶[0108]-[0109], [0135]-[0136])
and generating one or more recommendations for modifying said environment based on said analysis (generates recommendations to modify the residential and commercial properties, ¶¶[0109], [0137]),
wherein said one or more recommendations enhance safety and functionality of said environment by adjusting one or more of the following: wayfinding elements, visual cues, color contrast and visibility, and lighting conditions (recommendations involve improving lighting pathway, Tbl. 1, p. 12 Pathway Section, analyzed data includes visual cues, ¶[0141], and recommendations include contrasting colors, ¶[0115] and Tbl. 1, pgs. 12-13 Accessible or Primary Entrance Door Section).
However Brooks does not explicitly teach but Kwatra does teach:
a memory for storing a computer program for assessing and enhancing safety and functionality of environments for aging populations; and a processor connected to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions of the computer program comprising (computer readable storage media and instructions, e.g. ¶¶[0096]-[0097], [0128]-[0130] and Fig. 4):
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine risk assessment and modification recommendation of Brooks with the computer components of Kwatra because Brooks explicitly teaches the system is computer based, ¶[0026]; see also MPEP 2143.I.G.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and Brooks further teaches:
determining a light reflective value contrast between at least two adjacent surfaces within said environment; and comparing said determined light reflective value contrast against a threshold value specified in said set of environment design rules for features to identify deficiencies in visibility, wherein said features comprise one or more of the following: doorways, handrails, and bathroom fixtures (collected data includes colors and contrasts, ¶[0115], recommendations include handrails are a contrasting color, Tbl. 1, pgs. 12-13 Accessible or Primary Entrance Door Section, pg. 13 Types of Ramps: Portable and Stationary Section).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and Brooks further teaches:
wherein said one or more recommendations comprise a recommendation for placement of personalized memory cues at a specific location within said environment (collected data includes clear signage, symbols and pictograms, ¶[0141] and recommendations include storing important documents in safe location, Tbl. 1, pg. 17, Emergency Evacuation Preparedness Section).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and Brooks further teaches:
wherein said analysis of said description of physical characteristics of said environment against said set of environment design rules tailored for aging populations and individuals with cognitive impairment comprises: analyzing flooring characteristics in said description of physical characteristics of said environment including pattern complexity, reflectivity, and non-slip rating, against said set of environment design rules (analyzed data includes color contrast for walls, ¶[0115] and at steps, ¶[0141] and slippery restrooms, ¶[0141] and contrast between handrails and the walls and covering on the stairs, Tbl. 1, pg. 13, Interior Stairs Section);
and determining consistency of flooring transitions across different areas of said environment to minimize perceived hazards for individuals with depth perception issues based on said analysis of said flooring characteristics against said set of environment design rules (recommendations include color contrast and brightening flooring, Tbl. 1, pg. 14 Kitchen Assessment and Recommendations; and contrast between handrails and the walls and covering on the stairs, Tbl. 1, pg. 13, Interior Stairs Section; see also Tbl. 2 discussing low vision/blindness).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and Brooks further teaches:
wherein said set of environment design rules is directed to safety categories of wayfinding, color contrast and lighting, wherein said analysis of said description of physical characteristics of said environment against said set of environment design rules tailored for aging populations and individuals with cognitive impairment comprises (analysis includes accessible pathways, ¶[0110], color contrast and lighting, ¶[0115]):
and generating said one or more recommendations for modifying said environment based on said single, composite score (generates recommendations to modify the residential and commercial properties, ¶¶[0109], [0137]).
However Brooks does not teach but Kwatra does teach:
assigning a weighted score to said environment for each safety category based on a predefined weighting scheme derived from clinical or design research (assigns weights to different environmental components, ¶¶[0054]-[0056], [0062]; see also e.g., ¶[0068] discussing predicting risks for the elderly)
calculating a single, composite score by aggregating said weighted scores (weights are multiple by vectors of components and added together, ¶[0054])
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the risk assessment and modification recommendation of Brooks with the machine learning based risk assessment of Kwatra because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the risk prediction and mitigation Brooks would likely be improved by incorporating or augmenting it with a machine learning based analysis, e.g., as taught by Kwatra.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Brooks and Kwatra teaches all the limitations of claim 19 and Kwatra further teaches:
wherein said one or more recommendations comprise a corrective action for addressing a deficiency in one of said safety categories in response to a value of said single, composite score falling below a threshold value within a user-designated variance (if the risk score is above a threshold performs risk mitigation strategy, ¶[0094] and Fig. 3).
Further, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the risk assessment and modification recommendation of Brooks with the machine learning based risk assessment of Kwatra because known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives, see MPEP 2143.I.F. That is, one of ordinary skill would have recognized the risk prediction and mitigation Brooks would likely be improved by incorporating or augmenting it with a machine learning based analysis, e.g., as taught by Kwatra.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Farage, Miranda A., et al. "Design principles to accommodate older adults." Global journal of health science 4.2 (2012): 2 teaches a similar safety analysis for aging people including age related visual changes
Granger et al., US Pub. No. 2020/0200416 teaches a similar assessment of buildings
Soraci, Sandra "Designing Spaces for Behavioral and Mental Health Treatment" Continuing Education Center, Nov. 2023 teaches a similar assessment of buildings for people in Behavioral and Mental Health Treatment
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDAN S O'SHEA whose telephone number is (571)270-1064. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 10-6.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BRENDAN S O'SHEA/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights