Hartford Fire Insurance Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

2020002923 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/193,347 06/27/2016 Saleh Ahmed Alsubai H00470 (H03.164) 3402
28062 7590 04/01/2021
BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Martin@BMTPATENT.COM
colabella@bmtpatent.com
szpara@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SALEH AHMED ALSUBAI, DANIEL T. KELLY,
SUSAN A. RICKARD, and ROBERT JERARD ROSS
Appeal 2020-002923
Application 15/193,347
Technology Center 3600
Before BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, BRETT C. MARTIN, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MARTIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11, 12, and 14–21. See Final Act.
1. Claims 10 and 13 were cancelled during prosecution. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hartford Fire
Insurance Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002923
Application 15/193,347
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed “to computer systems associated with
monitoring and/or processing noise level exposure data (e.g., associated with
a workplace).” Spec. 1, ll. 4–6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A system associated with a site of an enterprise,
comprising:
a plurality of stationary noise sensors, each stationary
noise sensor including:
a microphone to sense noise,
a power source, and
a communication device, coupled to the
microphone and the power source, to transmit data about
noise sensed by each of the plurality of stationary noise
sensors;
a plurality of mobile noise sensors, each mobile noise
sensor including:
a microphone to sense noise,
a power source, and
a communication device, coupled to the
microphone and the power source, to transmit data about
noise sensed by each of the plurality of mobile noise
sensors;
a noise information hub to receive data from the plurality
of stationary noise sensors and the plurality of mobile noise
sensors and to provide indications associated with the received
data via a communication network;
a noise impact data store containing electronic records
associated with prior noise-related workers’ compensation
insurance claims, each claim being associated with a location
within the enterprise;
an enterprise analytics platform, coupled to the noise
impact data store, to receive the indications associated with the
received data via the communication network, the enterprise
analytics platform including a computer processor programmed
to:
Appeal 2020-002923
Application 15/193,347
3
(i) analyze the received indications to determine
noise level exposure information for each of a plurality of
locations within the site of the enterprise,
(ii) correlate the noise level exposure information
with the prior noise-related workers’ compensation
insurance claims in the noise impact data store, and
(iii) transmit information to facilitate rendering of
an interactive graphical operator interface, the interactive
graphical operator interface displaying a map-based
presentation of the noise level exposure information, prior
noise-related workers’ compensation insurance claims,
and detected noise-related incidents at associated
locations; and
an insurance underwriting module to receive, from the
enterprise analytics platform, the noise level exposure
information, wherein the noise level exposure information is
used to generate at least one insurance based parameter.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Seidmann US 5,970,795 Oct. 26, 1999
Barry US 2007/0217288 A1 Sept. 20, 2007
Humphrey US 8,446,273 B2 May 21, 2013
Bentley US 2013/0329863 A1 Dec. 12, 2013
Collopy US 2015/0339780 A1 Nov. 26, 2015
REJECTION
Claims 1–9, 11, 12, and 14–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Barry, Bentley, Seidmann, Collopy, and Humphrey.
Final Act. 9.

Appeal 2020-002923
Application 15/193,347
4
OPINION
Obviousness
Appellant argues the claims as a group and states that “[c]laim 1 is
taken as exemplary of the pending claims.” Appeal Br. 9. We select claim 1
as representative of all claims at issue. The claims stand or fall with our
disposition of claim 1. Appellant asserts that “[a]t the very least, Barry
completely fails to disclose or suggest stationary ‘noise sensors.’” Appeal
Br. 9. As the Examiner points out, however, “Barry was not relied upon to
disclose stationary noise sensors” and that “Bentley was asserted as
disclosing ‘a plurality of stationary noise sensors.’” Ans. 4.
Appellant also contends that “Barry completely fails to disclose or
suggest . . . a ‘noise information hub’ that receives data about ‘noise sensed
by . . . noise sensors.’” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant’s arguments appear
directed to the fact that Barry does not receive noise data from noise sensors,
and so whatever information hub and other components are present, they do
not deal with noise data. We agree with the Examiner, however, that Barry
does teach a noise information hub. Ans. 5 (citing e.g., Barry, ¶ 14). Barry
may not receive actual noise data, but it does process data related to noise
determinations in a similar way and as the Examiner states, “[t]hose skilled
in the art will understand that the noise data analyzer may receive any
number of data inputs and that three inputs is only exemplary.” Id. In other
words, we agree with the Examiner that Barry would process actual noise
data in the same way that it processes estimated noise data simply by adding
the additional inputs of Bentley as explained by the Examiner. See, e.g.,
Final Act. 18.
Appellant next asserts that “[t]here would simply be no reason why
someone would use workstation and/or smartphone microphones in an office
Appeal 2020-002923
Application 15/193,347
5
to supplement the information disclosed in Barry.” Appeal Br. 10. The
Examiner explains, however, that “Barry is directed towards a system and a
method for noise monitoring” and “Bentley is directed to methods and
systems to measure and control workplace noise” and that these two
references “are deemed to be analogous as they are both directed towards
noise monitoring systems.” Final Act. 18. The Examiner adequately
explains that adding the actual noise monitoring of Bentley to the noise
estimation of Barry “provides a more robust system by allowing
management to quickly and efficiently determine potential noise hazards
based on the received noise measurements, thereby mitigating noise
sources.” Id.
As to Seidmann, we agree with the Examiner “that Appellant’s bare
assertion that ‘there is clearly no reason why this idea would be applied to
Barry’ . . . amounts to general allegations that the claims define a patentable
invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims
patentably distinguishes them from the references.” Ans. 7–8. Appellant
makes no real argument apprising us of error, but merely makes an assertion
that the Examiner is incorrect. Nevertheless, we agree with the Examiner’s
explanation that “Seidmann relates to a system and method for testing
hearing protection devices in the field to determine their effectiveness as
actually used,” and “to in-situ testing and objective measurement of the
noise reduction provided by insert-type hearing protection devices.” Ans. 8–
9. As such, the Examiner is correct that Seidmann, like Barry and Bentley,
is directed to “a system for implementing noise measurement data collection
and analysis.” Id. We deem this a sufficient basis for the Examiner’s
combination of Seidmann with Barry and Bentley. Accordingly, we are not
Appeal 2020-002923
Application 15/193,347
6
apprised of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We likewise sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of the other pending claims for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection is AFFIRMED.
More specifically,
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11, 12,
14–21
103 Barry, Bentley,
Seidmann,
Collopy,
Humphrey
1–9, 11, 12,
14–21

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED