DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 19/379,379 was filed on November 4, 2025 and is a continuation of PCT Application No. PCT/US2024/028897, filed May 10, 2024, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/501,990, filed May 12, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 13, 2026 was filed before the mailing date of this non-final action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, (a) receiving a set of user data associated with one or more users;
(b) receiving a set of responder data associated with one or more responders;
(c) processing the set of user data or the set of responder data to generate the at least one action; and
(d) transmitting the at least one action to one or more commanders, wherein the one or more commanders direct the one or more users or the one or more responders to perform the at least one action during the emergency.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). Specifically, assisting a commander in directing actions to perform during an emergency is managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)).
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to generate an action to perform during an emergency based on received data can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of Applicant’s specification, generating an action is interpreted to include recommending/suggesting an action to perform.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1, as a whole, amounts to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claim 1 recites the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a trained machine learning model. This additional element is a generic computer component performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and is recited at a high level of generality. As such, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 3, 5-13, and 18-31, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claim 1. The additional elements in claims 4, 14-17, and 32 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claims 4, 16 and 17, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 4, 16 and 17 also recite the additional elements of a natural language processing (NLP) model (claim 4), one or more image devices (claim 16), one or more communications towers (claim 16), one or more networked devices (claim 16), and a communications network (claim 17). Each of these additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 14 and 16, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 14 and 16 also recite the additional elements of one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (claim 14), one or more manned aerial vehicles (claim 14), and one or more satellite images (claim 16). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., collecting environmental data) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claims 15 and 32, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claims 15 and 32 also recite the additional elements of one or more security doors (claim 15) and automatically controlling at least one security door (claim 32). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., securing a location) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 16 and 17, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (claim 14), one or more manned aerial vehicles (claim 14), and one or more satellite images (claim 16), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 16 and 17 are also ineligible.
With respect to claims 14-16 and 32, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of one or more unmanned aerial vehicles (claim 14), one or more manned aerial vehicles (claim 14), one or more security doors (claim 15), one or more satellite images (claim 16), and automatically controlling at least one security door (claim 32), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 14-16 and 32 are also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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
patentor application, as the case maybe, names another inventor and was effectively filed
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-13, 15-25, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0044673 to MacGabann (MacGabann).
As to claim 1, MacGabann teaches (a) receiving a set of user data associated with one or more users (“… and provides the dispatch entities with real-time location updates [i.e., a set of user data] received from the mobile rescue application …” and “… Specifically, the dynamic rescue application user interface enables users to efficiently and quickly provide a complete emergency situation information packet [i.e., a set of user data] that enables prioritization of their request and/or matching of the user with an emergency responder …” [0027 and 0033]);
(b) receiving a set of responder data associated with one or more responders (“… In addition, the responder application can allow the user to receive updates regarding the status and location of the dispatched emergency responder [i.e., a set of responder data], by communication between the responder application and the rescue application” and “… The responder application 135 can receive perpetual (e.g., real-time) location updates and/or status updates relating to the victim, and can also provide perpetual location and/or status updates relating to the emergency responder [i.e., a set of responder data] at block 317 …” [0032 and 0128]);
(c) processing, via a trained machine learning model, the set of user data or the set of responder data to generate the at least one action (“… For example, the machine learning simulations can train the system how to most efficiently dispatch emergency responders [i.e., generate the at least one action] to victims requesting rescue during different disaster scenarios such as fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes …” and “… Each factor may be a general factor contributing to a victim's severity score, S. Each function can take the form of a vector, a scalar, a partial differential equation (PDE), a machine learning algorithm, and/or other function types yielding a result that assists in determining the severity of a victim's predicament based on their rescue request …” [0146-0148 and 0202-0204]);
and (d) transmitting the at least one action to one or more commanders, wherein the one or more commanders direct the one or more users or the one or more responders to perform the at least one action during the emergency (“At interaction (4), the rescue request manager 125 [i.e., one or more commanders] sends dispatch instructions [i.e, the at least one action] to the responder application 135 of a computing device designated for the identified emergency responder …” and “… The machine learning simulations can run intermittently or periodically, for example while the rescue management servers 120 are idle or have a threshold amount of computing bandwidth. In other implementations the machine learning simulations can run on dedicated hardware …” [0061-0068 and 0147] Examiner notes that the systems running the machine learning simulations are “transmitting” the action to the rescue request manager).
As to claim 4, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the trained machine learning model comprises a natural language processing (NLP) model for processing one or more communications associated with the one or more users, the one or more responders, or the one or more commanders to determine the at least one action (“… In some embodiments, the PSAP 121 or the rescue management servers 120 may review said text-to-911 messages using an automated natural language processing application …” and “… he rescue request manager 125 may parse any text provided in free-form input fields for use in assessing emergency severity and/or suitable emergency responders, for example using natural language processing, and/or may pass on the text to the dispatched emergency responder” [0039-0041 and 0213]).
As to claim 5, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the method occurs in a mode comprising an actual emergency mode or a training emergency mode (“With respect to the rescue application, the user can initially be presented with a menu asking them to select from a number of general categories of emergency. These categories may be dynamically modified and/or reordered based on real-time disaster monitoring (e.g., known earthquake or flood locations, predicted fire trajectories) …” and “… An emergency protocol refers to a protocol used during an emergency scenario such as a mass disaster or attack. A non-emergency protocol refers to a protocol used during processing of rescue requests during non-mass-disaster scenarios, for example daily rescue requests …” [0030-0032 and 0074]).
As to claim 6, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the set of user data comprises user communications data, user status data, or user location data (“… This can include updated location of the victim, updated dispatch routing information, and updated status information regarding the victim (for example, if the victim's injuries have changed or if their emergency situation has escalated or de-escalated) …” and “… Such questions may seek responses to questions or inquiries such as victim location, type and severity of emergency, and standard ancillary questions that define the victim's emergency/situation with a greater degree of precision” [0032-0033 and 0040]).
As to claim 7, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the set of responder data comprises responder communications data, responder status data, responder location data, or responder navigation data (“… In addition, the responder application can allow the user to receive updates regarding the status and location of the dispatched emergency responder, by communication between the responder application and the rescue application” and “… The responder application 135 can receive perpetual (e.g., real-time) location updates and/or status updates relating to the victim, and can also provide perpetual location and/or status updates relating to the emergency responder at block 317 …” [0032 and 0128]).
As to claim 8, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the one or more commanders are associated with a set of commander data comprising commander communications data, commander status data, commander location data, or commander navigation data (“… In some embodiments, the PSAP 121 or the rescue management servers 120 may review said text-to-911 messages [i.e., commander communications data] using an automated natural language processing application. Said text-to-911 messages may be analyzed, via machine learning, for sentiment and quantitative information that is related to a prior set of data. This analysis may be utilized in processing and/or triaging by the rescue management servers 120, for example via the rescue request manager 125 …” and “… The triaging can be based, for example, on a severity of the emergency as indicated by the emergency information of the rescue request packet (e.g., criticality of any injuries, threat level of any assault), and also on a distance between the user and a nearest dispatch hub (e.g., police station, hospital, fire station) [i.e., commander location data] …” [0039 and 0061-0062]).
As to claim 9, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the at least one action associated with the one or more users comprises a user communication action, a fortify action, a flee action, an injury action, or a user status action (“… Identification of a suitable responder can include matching any injury or emergency situations with one or more of police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other types of emergency responders” and “… Emergency types (1)-(5) were selected based on a set of most commonly occurring codes in existing EMS codes. EMS codes refer to the existing codes used by emergency services to classify incoming emergency calls and dispatch field units. These codes may be organized as a hierarchy by the disclosed emergency response system 100, such that codes relating to specific injuries and emergency scenarios would be organized under a more general code for a type of emergency …” [0061 and 0206]).
As to claim 10, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the at least one action associated with the one or more responders comprises a responder communication action, a respond action, a command action, or a responder status action (“… At interaction (5), the responder application 135 may send a dispatch confirmation [i.e., the at least one action] to the rescue application 105 …” [0061-0065] Examiner notes that the display confirmation, as taught by MacGabann, can be one or more of the listed action types).
As to claim 11, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the at least one action associated with the one or more commanders comprises a commander communication action, a respond action, an aerial action, a ground action, an intervention action, or a reunify action (“At interaction (3), the rescue request manager 125 performs automated triaging of the rescue request with other incoming rescue requests and identifies a suitable responder to dispatch to the user [i.e., the at least one action] …” [0061-0065] Examiner notes that the triaging and dispatch, as taught by MacGabann, can be one or more of the listed action types).
As to claim 12, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the at least one action comprises the one or more responders or the one or more commanders mitigating one or more active threats associated with the emergency (“… Identification of a suitable responder can include matching any injury or emergency situations with one or more of police, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other types of emergency responders …” and “FIG. 3E is a flowchart of an example process 300e for the triaging subroutine of FIG. 2C. The triaging subroutine processes a variety of inputs to sort and prioritize incoming rescue requests and match victims with suitable responders at block 335 …” [0061-0065 and 0144-0145]).
As to claim 13, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, (a) receiving a set of aerial data, ground data, or structural data; (“… As such, the emergency response system 100 may include one or more computing devices implementing such disaster-monitoring applications (e.g., based on satellite imaging data, seismic sensors, weather data, social media monitoring, etc.)” and “… The user interface of FIG. 5E includes a set of menu options for assessing the severity of the emergency, including options to indicate whether the emergency relates to mechanical or machinery entrapment, trench collapse, structure or building collapse, or a confined/small space …” [0059 and 0211]);
and (b) processing, via the trained machine learning model, the set of aerial data, ground data, or structural data to generate the at least one action (“… For example, the machine learning simulations can train the system how to most efficiently dispatch emergency responders to victims requesting rescue during different disaster scenarios such as fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes …” [0146-0148]).
As to claim 15, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the set of ground data comprises data associated with or received from one or more image devices, one or more security doors, one or more communications towers, one or more networked devices, or any combination thereof (“… As such, the emergency response system 100 may include one or more computing devices implementing such disaster-monitoring applications (e.g., based on satellite imaging data, seismic sensors, weather data, social media monitoring, etc.)” [0059]).
As to claim 16, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, where the set of structural data comprises data associated with or received from one or more architectural plans, one or more aerial images, one or more satellite images, or any combination thereof (“… As such, the emergency response system 100 may include one or more computing devices implementing such disaster-monitoring applications (e.g., based on satellite imaging data, seismic sensors, weather data, social media monitoring, etc.)” [0059]).
As to claim 17, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, (a) transmitting the at least one action to the one or more users, the one or more responders, or the one or more commanders (“… Beneficially, the rescue request manager can quickly perform automated triaging to identify which victims require rescue most urgently, and can match those victims with appropriate emergency responders as well as send dispatch instructions to the respective emergency responders …” and “… At interaction (4), the rescue request manager 125 sends dispatch instructions to the responder application 135 of a computing device designated for the identified emergency responder …” [0031 and 0061-0062]),
wherein the transmitting is via a communications network configured with the one or more users in communication with the one or more responders or the one or more commanders (“The user computing devices 110, rescue management servers 120, and responder computing devices 130 may be in communication with one another via a network 115 …” [0036-0037]).
As to claim 18, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, (a) determining a reunification status of the one or more users; and (b) transmitting the reunification status to the one or more responders or the one or more commanders (“Beneficially, the responder application enables dispatched emergency responders to receive critical information in real time. This can include updated location of the victim, updated dispatch routing information, and updated status information regarding the victim (for example, if the victim's injuries have changed or if their emergency situation has escalated or de-escalated) …” and “… The responder application 135 can receive perpetual (e.g., real-time) location updates and/or status updates relating to the victim, and can also provide perpetual location and/or status updates relating to the emergency responder at block 317 …” [0032 and 0128-0130]).
As to claim 19, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the reunification status comprises: unaccounted for status, accounted for status, released to a guardian status, released to emergency medical services (EMS) status, absent status, other status, or any combination thereof (“Beneficially, the responder application enables dispatched emergency responders to receive critical information in real time. This can include updated location of the victim, updated dispatch routing information, and updated status information regarding the victim (for example, if the victim's injuries have changed or if their emergency situation has escalated or de-escalated) …” and “… The responder application 135 can receive perpetual (e.g., real-time) location updates and/or status updates relating to the victim, and can also provide perpetual location and/or status updates relating to the emergency responder at block 317 …” [0032 and 0128-0130]).
As to claim 20, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the one or more users transmit the set of user data to the one or more responders, the one or more commanders, or at least another user of the one or more users (“… Specifically, the dynamic rescue application user interface enables users to efficiently and quickly provide a complete emergency situation information packet that enables prioritization of their request and/or matching of the user with an emergency responder …” and “… The selection-based options of the user interfaces can be designed to obtain a complete set of information, that is, all of the information needed by the emergency response system 100 in order to prioritize the rescue request and dispatch appropriate emergency responders. Optionally, the user interfaces can be supplemented with free-form text input that enables users to provide additional information …” [0032-0033 and 0058]).
As to claim 21, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the one or more responders transmit the set of responder data to the one or more users, the one or more commanders, or at least another responder of the one or more responders (“… In addition, the responder application can allow the user to receive updates regarding the status and location of the dispatched emergency responder, by communication between the responder application and the rescue application” and “… The responder application 135 can receive perpetual (e.g., real-time) location updates and/or status updates relating to the victim, and can also provide perpetual location and/or status updates relating to the emergency responder at block 317 …” [0032 and 0128]).
As to claim 22, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the one or more commanders transmit a set of commander data to the one or more users, the one or more responders, or at least another commander of the one or more commanders (“… The dispatch instructions can include the emergency information presented in the rescue request packet such that the dispatched emergency responder has a clear picture of the emergency at hand and can ready any required supplies and/or personnel for handling the emergency. Further, the dispatch instructions can include the location of the user computing device at the time of transmitting the rescue request and/or dispatch instructions …” [0061-0065]).
As to claim 23, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the one or more users receive the set of responder data from the one or more responders or a set of commander data from the one or more commanders (“… In addition, the responder application can allow the user to receive updates regarding the status and location of the dispatched emergency responder, by communication between the responder application and the rescue application” and “… The responder application 135 can receive perpetual (e.g., real-time) location updates and/or status updates relating to the victim, and can also provide perpetual location and/or status updates relating to the emergency responder at block 317 …” [0032 and 0128]).
As to claim 24, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the one or more responders receive the set of user data from the one or more users or a set of commander data from the one or more commanders (“… Emergency responders can access the emergency response system 100 via their computing devices 130 to receive dispatch assignments, victim information, and/or victim location updates” and “… The dispatch instructions can include the emergency information presented in the rescue request packet such that the dispatched emergency responder has a clear picture of the emergency at hand and can ready any required supplies and/or personnel for handling the emergency. Further, the dispatch instructions can include the location of the user computing device at the time of transmitting the rescue request and/or dispatch instructions …” [0037 and 0062]).
As to claim 25, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the one or more commanders receive the set of user data from the one or more users or the set of responder data from the one or more commanders (“… Specifically, the dynamic rescue application user interface enables users to efficiently and quickly provide a complete emergency situation information packet that enables prioritization of their request and/or matching of the user with an emergency responder …” and “… The selection-based options of the user interfaces can be designed to obtain a complete set of information, that is, all of the information needed by the emergency response system 100 in order to prioritize the rescue request and dispatch appropriate emergency responders. Optionally, the user interfaces can be supplemented with free-form text input that enables users to provide additional information …” [0032-0033 and 0058]).
As to claim 30, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, further comprising determining, via the trained machine learning model, a threat assessment of one or more active threats (“… Such questions may seek responses to questions or inquiries such as victim location, type and severity of emergency, and standard ancillary questions that define the victim's emergency/situation with a greater degree of precision” and “… In some embodiments, these applications and/or algorithms may determine location data or other information regarding severity, sentiment, situation, (for example, weapons detection) etc., from the image and/or video files …” [0039-0040 and 0051-0055]).
As to claim 31, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 30 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the at least one action comprises automatically deploying one or more threat countermeasures based at least on the threat assessment (“… The information collected by the scraping process may be used to determine victim density during an event. Such processing may allow automatic triaging of victims that did not affirmatively generate a request via the emergency response system 100 or other PSAP communication …” and “… The computed responder pathways and machine learning simulations can be constrained to maximize efficiency at block 327, that is, to maximize the number of victims rescued within a certain period of time. The responder pathways, weather conditions, disaster severity, locations of responders and drop-off hubs, victim density, and locations of any emergency geofences are provided to the speculative computing module …” [0053 and 0147-0148]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0006295 to 2021/0044673 to MacGabann (MacGabann) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0070643 to Ahmet et al. (Ahmet).
As to claim 2, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann does not teach, wherein the emergency is associated with one or more active threats on a same or different campus, workplace, or commercial establishment. However, Ahmet teaches, wherein the emergency is associated with one or more active threats on a same or different campus, workplace, or commercial establishment (“… The emergency determining system may then determine instructions to provide to individuals within the area. For example, in the case of a tornado the instructions may include directions to take cover in an underground or interior space. In another case, such as a case of an active shooter, the instructions may include taking shelter indoors, locking exits and entrances, and closing window shades and the like …” and “… For instance, the emergency level associated with an automobile accident may be much lower than an emergency level associated with an armed robbery [i.e., one or more active threats on a commercial establishment] …” [0009 and 0031]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the emergency is associated with one or more active threats on a same or different campus, workplace, or commercial establishment, as taught by Ahmet with the emergency action determining method of MacGabann. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Ahmet that doing so would improve the efficiency of warning bystanders to various type of emergencies and instructing the bystanders as to appropriate actions that may be taken to reduce personal risk posed by the present emergency [0001].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0006295 to 2021/0044673 to MacGabann (MacGabann) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0171428 to Patton et al. (Patton).
As to claim 3, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann further teaches, wherein the trained machine learning model is obtained by:
(a) training the model using (1) a first and second set subset of the set of user data, (2) a first and second subset of the responder data, and (3) associating an action score with each of the first and second subsets of the user data or responder data (“… For example, a severity score [i.e., an action score] can be generated from the responses to UI prompts, based on EMS Priority Dispatch Codes, and based on other factors such as analysis of the user's behavior on their computing device during, before, and/or after submission of a rescue request (e.g., communications with others about the emergency, other applications in use on the mobile device, touch patterns on the mobile device) …” and “… The severity score may provide a fundamental measure that rescue requests are measured against, and which correlates with established EMS/PD or similar codes that provide first responders with critical information about victims …” [0147-0152 and 0202-0203]);
determines the at least one action based at least on each of the action scores (“… An assigned value for T may be based on the victim's initial severity score (for example, when the victim initially requests rescue). In some embodiments, changes in the rate of increase or decrease of a victim's lifespan value, driven by updated victim data, can have critical importance on that victim's rescue” and “… If one victim's rescue request provides that their predicament is more severe than that of another victim, the victim with a greater severity score will be ordered or prioritized to be rescued first …” [0162 and 0202]);
wherein the threshold performance is indicative of a likelihood of the at least one action resolving the emergency (“In some implementations, the severity score, S, or a certain input in the rescue application 105 user interface can be associated with a time limit representing a limited window for successful rescue of the victim …” and “… For example, the success of a given rescue can be impacted by certain environmental factors that change over time, the impact of which can be expressed by a time-series stochastic process based on real-world or simulated data” [0151-0152 and 0180]).
MacGabann does not teach, (b) validating the model on an independent subset of the user data or the responder data; and (c) selecting a threshold performance for the validated model such that the validated model determines the at least one action based at least on each of the action scores, wherein the threshold performance is indicative of a likelihood of the at least one action resolving the emergency. However, Patton teaches, (b) validating the model on an independent subset of the user data or the responder data (“The validation system functions to measure the performance of candidate models (e.g., newly-trained models) …” and “The method for model management includes, within a testing platform: building candidate model(s) S200, validating the candidate model(s) S300, and selectively deploying the candidate model(s) into a production environment S400 … In these variants, the testing platform and the production environment preferably ingest the same raw data, such that the candidate models are generated using the same data (or a subset thereof) as that used by the deployed models to detect class instances …” [0048-0049 and 0060-0061]);
and (c) selecting a threshold performance for the validated model such that the validated model determines the at least one action (“… The production environment preferably additionally allows endpoints to subscribe to the model analyses (e.g., detected classes, such as detected event classes), and can transmit notifications to the endpoints or perform any suitable action based on the model output(s) (e.g., in response to detection of an event class that the endpoint is subscribed to) …” and “… In a first variation, the run condition is met when one or more evaluation metric values for a deployed model surpasses a predetermined threshold. For example, the run condition can be met when the deployed model performance (e.g., accuracy or precision) falls below a predetermined threshold, when the deployed model has a concept drift parameter that is above or below a threshold value, or when the deployed model outputs false positives or false negatives at a rate exceeding a predetermined threshold …” [0048-0050 and 0064-0069]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, (b) validating the model on an independent subset of the user data or the responder data; and (c) selecting a threshold performance for the validated model such that the validated model determines the at least one action based at least on each of the action scores, wherein the threshold performance is indicative of a likelihood of the at least one action resolving the emergency, as taught by Patton with the emergency action determining method of MacGabann. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Patton that doing so would provide a new and useful system for model management [0005].
Claims 14 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0006295 to 2021/0044673 to MacGabann (MacGabann) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0045828 to Kumar et al. (Kumar).
As to claim 14, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. MacGabann does not teach, wherein the set of aerial data comprises data associated with or received from one or more unmanned aerial vehicles, one or more manned aerial vehicles, or any combination thereof. However, Kumar teaches, wherein the set of aerial data comprises data associated with or received from one or more unmanned aerial vehicles, one or more manned aerial vehicles, or any combination thereof (“… In some embodiments, the drones may continually communicate positioning sensor data (e.g., image data, LIDAR data, sonar data, and/or the like) to the drone station 120 and/or the emergency response computing platform 110, which in turn may generate the models (e.g., three-dimensional models) of the premises for exploration purposes and communicate the models back to the drones” [0027-0028).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the set of aerial data comprises data associated with or received from one or more unmanned aerial vehicles, one or more manned aerial vehicles, or any combination thereof, as taught by Kumar with the emergency action determining method of MacGabann. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kumar that doing so would help to more accurately detect emergency conditions, relay information about the emergency conditions to reviewers and/or responders for analysis, determine a response plan, and execute the response plan to mitigate the emergency condition both before and after first responders arrive [0003].
As to claim 32, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 30 as discussed above. MacGabann does not teach, wherein the at least one action comprises automatically controlling at least one security door based at least on the threat assessment. However, Kumar teaches, wherein the at least one action comprises automatically controlling at least one security door based at least on the threat assessment (“FIGS. 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, and 2E depict an illustrative event sequence for using autonomous drones to detect and respond to emergency conditions …” and “… For example, the emergency response computing platform 110 may transmit an instruction to activate a sprinkler system in response to a fire emergency condition, may transmit an instruction to turn on and/or flash lights in an area of an evacuation, may transmit commands to turn off appliances near a fire or flood, may transmit commands to unlock and/or open doors and/or windows to allow drones to access the location of the emergency condition and/or to provide a route for an evacuation, may transmit commands to play audio messages over a PA system, and other such commands that may be specified by playbooks or associated with response plan action items …” [0027 and 0053-0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the at least one action comprises automatically controlling at least one security door based at least on the threat assessment, as taught by Kumar with the emergency action determining method of MacGabann. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kumar that doing so would help to more accurately detect emergency conditions, relay information about the emergency conditions to reviewers and/or responders for analysis, determine a response plan, and execute the response plan to mitigate the emergency condition both before and after first responders arrive [0003].
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0006295 to 2021/0044673 to MacGabann (MacGabann) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0169699 to Will et al. (Will).
As to claim 26, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann does not teach, wherein before the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more commanders, the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more users to perform during the emergency. However, Will teaches, wherein before the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more commanders, the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more users to perform during the emergency (“… Conversely, if a fall appears minor, the personal emergency response system may send an automated response requesting that the subscriber confirm that he or she is okay, and initiate the conference network absent timely confirmation from the subscriber that he or she is okay. In some embodiments, an alarm event associated with a fall sensor may trigger the personal emergency response system to give notice to a heath care provider or a family member to join the conference network, and then initiate a conference network with emergency dispatch if the health care provider or family member do not timely respond …” and “… If the fail-safe settings provide for escalating the alarm event to emergency dispatch 428, then emergency dispatch is added to the conference network 406. Otherwise, the control center is added to the conference network 410 …” [0070-0072 and 0080-0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein before the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more commanders, the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more users to perform during the emergency, or any combination thereof, as taught by Will with the emergency action determining method of MacGabann. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Will that doing so would enable medical professionals, caregivers, family members, and emergency response teams to be more responsive in a given situation [0015].
As to claim 27, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann does not teach, wherein before the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more commanders, the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more responders to perform during the emergency. However, Will teaches, wherein before the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more commanders, the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more responders to perform during the emergency (“… In a preferred embodiment, if an alarm event is not an emergency, the initial notice to join the conference network is provided to parties other than emergency dispatch operators. For example, notice could be first given to a friend or family member, or to a health care provider …” and “… In some embodiments, an alarm event associated with a fall sensor may trigger the personal emergency response system to give notice to a heath care provider or a family member to join the conference network, and then initiate a conference network with emergency dispatch if the health care provider or family member do not timely respond …” [0067-0068 and 0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein before the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more commanders, the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more responders to perform during the emergency, as taught by Will with the emergency action determining method of MacGabann. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Will that doing so would enable medical professionals, caregivers, family members, and emergency response teams to be more responsive in a given situation [0015].
As to claim 28, MacGabann teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. MacGabann does not teach, wherein before the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more commanders, the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more users or the one or more responders to perform during the emergency. However, Will teaches, wherein before the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more commanders, the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more users or the one or more responders to perform during the emergency (“… In a preferred embodiment, if an alarm event is not an emergency, the initial notice to join the conference network is provided to parties other than emergency dispatch operators. For example, notice could be first given to a friend or family member, or to a health care provider …” and “… In some embodiments, an alarm event associated with a fall sensor may trigger the personal emergency response system to give notice to a heath care provider or a family member to join the conference network, and then initiate a conference network with emergency dispatch if the health care provider or family member do not timely respond …” [0067-0068 and 0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein before the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more commanders, the at least one action is transmitted to the one or more users or the one or more responders to perform during the emergency, as taught by Will with the emergency action determining method of MacGabann. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Will that doing so would enable medical professionals, caregivers, family members, and emergency response teams to be more responsive in a given situation [0015].
As to claim 29, MacGabann in view of Will teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 as discussed above. MacGabann does not teach, wherein the one or more users and the one or more responders transmit the at least one action to each other to perform during the emergency. However, Will teaches, wherein the one or more users and the one or more responders transmit the at least one action to each other to perform during the emergency (“… Once one or more parties join the conference network, in a preferred embodiment, the response server 104 is configured to allow two-way communications and data transmissions among one or more parties and a subscriber device 110 …” and “… In a preferred embodiment, a user interface is made available to enable control center operators, care givers, friends and family, or emergency dispatch operators, or other parties to interact with the subscriber, subscriber device, or auxiliary device in response to an alarm event …” and “… For example, a first button of the subscriber device could be enabled for auto-dialing an emergency number such as 911, while a second button could be enabled for auto-dialing medical personnel such as a doctor or nurse of the user, and a third button could be enabled for auto-dialing a family member or other caretaker …” [0055-0056 and 0062 and 0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the one or more users and the one or more responders transmit the at least one action to each other to perform during the emergency, as taught by Will with the emergency action determining method of MacGabann. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Will that doing so would enable medical professionals, caregivers, family members, and emergency response teams to be more responsive in a given situation [0015].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent No. 11,551,117 to Malhotra (Malhotra)
U.S. Patent No. 11,295,405 to Dejewski et al. (Dejewski)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0119550 to Stockert et al. (Stockert)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0141917 to Sanghavi (Sanghavi)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0325288 to Oyenan et al. (Oyenan)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0101923 to Griesmann et al. (Griesmann)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0215044 to Smith et al. (Smith)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0365390 to Braun (Braun)
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0100510 to Balaban et al. (Balaban)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights