Knowmadics, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 3, 2022

2020006041 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2022)

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. 16/408,731 05/10/2019 Paul MAGUIRE PTB-6564-31 9467 23117 7590 02/03/2022 NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER HUSSAIN, TAUQIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2446 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/03/2022 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PAUL MAGUIRE, LISA CINNAMON, CLAIRE OSTRUM, BRIAN O’TOOLE, STEVEN EDGETT and CHARLES CORCORAN ___________ Appeal 2020-006041 Application 16/408,731 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC B. CHEN and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 2-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 11-21. Claims 2, 13, 18 and 21 are 1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 24, 2020), the Reply Brief (filed August 24, 2020), the Final Action (mailed November 22, 2019) and the Answer (mailed June 23, 2020), for the respective details. 2 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. 1.42(a). (“The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.”). Appellant identifies KNOWMADICS, INC. as the real party in Footnote continued on the next page. Appeal 2020-006041 Application 16/408,731 2 independent. Claim 1 is cancelled. See Claims Appendix. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Introduction According to Appellant: One aspect of the present disclosure relates to crowd sourced computer-implemented methods and systems of collecting and transforming portable device data to cause actionable responses including machine to machine (M2M) such as computer aided dispatch (CAD), analytic tools, or command and control (C2) tools; and/or machine to person (M2P) by one or more human actors, such as an emergency first responder, a crime investigation organization, public safety personnel, a private citizen, or a private security firm. Specification ¶ 3. Illustrative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 2. A system comprising at least one processor and memory, the system configured to: generate, based on event information, alert information for an event at a physical location, the alert information including location information of a plurality of mobile devices located in vicinity of the physical location; transmit the alert information to the plurality of mobile devices located in the vicinity of the physical location; receive, from at least one of the plurality of mobile devices, sensor data collected by a sensor of the at least one mobile device and/or data input by a user to the at least one mobile device; and update the event information based on the received sensor data and/or the received input data. interest. Appeal Brief 3. Appeal 2020-006041 Application 16/408,731 3 References Name3 Reference Date Laird US 2005/0085257 A1 April 21, 2005 Neeraj US 2009/0047972 A1 February 19, 2009 Narayan US 2009/0323953 A1 December 31, 2009 Short US 2016/0239624 A1 August 18, 2016 Rejections on Appeal Claims 2, 3, 13, 18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laird. Final Action 4-7. Claims 4-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Laird and Narayan.4 Final Action 7-11. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Laird, Narayan and Neeraj. Final Action 11-13. Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Laird and Short. Final Action 13-14. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Laird teaches, “the alert information including location information [of] a plurality of mobile devices located in vicinity of the physical location.” Final Action 5 (citing Laird Figure 1, element 120, ¶ 43). Appellant states: Independent claim 2 recites, inter alia, that the system is configured to “generate, based on event information, alert information for an event at a physical location, the alert information including location 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. 4 Independent claim 21 is listed in the rejection statement however the claim is not addressed in the rejection. See Final Action 7-11. We view this as harmless error. Appeal 2020-006041 Application 16/408,731 4 information of a plurality of mobile devices located in vicinity of the physical location,” and “transmit the alert information to the plurality of mobile devices located in the vicinity of the physical location.” Appeal Brief 11; see Claims Appendix. Appellant argues: Laird does not disclose that alert information including location information of the “wearable devices” (which allegedly correspond to the claimed plurality of mobile devices located in vicinity of the physical location) is transmitted to the “wearable devices”, does not disclose that alert information including location information of a “plurality of headsets” is transmitted to the “plurality of headsets,” and does not disclose that alert information including location information of the “third parties” is transmitted to the “third parties.” Appeal Brief 13-14; see Laird ¶ 43. The Examiner further finds and determines in the Answer that: [Laird] in addition to the (paragraph [0044], the handset 100 can automatically place an emergency call and/or send a notification message to the campus security management server), disclosed in [0037] the handset 100 includes a satellite receiver 206 to receive location data from a navigation satellite. Therefore, the location/position of the device is already known and established further details can be found in [0046]. [Laird] further discloses in [0045], message being broadcasted to wearable devices (i.e.[,] plurality of mobile devices) in the close proximity which is further in communication with the management server. Therefore, sensor data or wearable device input data which is received via connection 102 is sent to the management server. Answer 4. Laird teaches that, “Optionally, the handset 100 includes a satellite receiver 206 to receive location data from a navigation satellite. Although the present disclosure refers to the GPS satellite navigation system, other satellite or terrestrial navigation systems are acceptable” and “[i]n addition, the handset 100 can include a ‘software configured navigation receiver,’ which can be configured Appeal 2020-006041 Application 16/408,731 5 to receive signals from these and other sources of navigation information.” Laird ¶ 37. Laird teaches in paragraph 44, “Optionally, sensors can be used in conjunction with the handset 100 to detect physical conditions in the vicinity of the handset.” Laird also teaches in paragraph 45, “Some or all of the sensors can be included in the handset 100 (as described with reference to FIG. 2), in one or more units that are connected by wired or wireless links to the handset or a combination thereof.” Laird further teaches in paragraph 46 that, “Systems according to the present disclosure enable the location of the handset 100 to be ascertained with more precision than in conventional emergency call systems.” Appellant contends: The handset 100 of Laird does not include or generate alert information including “location information of a plurality of mobile devices located in vicinity of the physical location.” Thus, any information received by the wearable devices 121 of Laird from the handset 100 does not include “location information of a plurality of mobile devices located in vicinity of the physical location.” Similarly, there is no disclosure in Laird of the campus security management server 114 providing such information to the wearable devices 121. The relied upon sections of Laird also do not disclose that the claimed alert information is transmitted to a plurality of wearable device 121. As discussed above, the wearable device 121 is used to provide information to the handset 100 or to the campus security management server 114. There is no disclosure of the handset 100 or the campus security management server 114 transmitting the claimed alert information to a plurality of wearable device 121. That is, a plurality of wearable devices 121 in Laird do not receive information including location information of the plurality of wearable devices 121 in the vicinity of the physical location (for which the alert information is generated). Reply Brief 3. Appellant’s arguments are persuasive of Examiner error. Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that “‘each and every element as set forth in Appeal 2020-006041 Application 16/408,731 6 the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.’” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Here, Laird teaches, “methods and apparatus for providing secondary notifications to third parties, such as campus safety or security organizations, of indications of a potential emergency, including emergency calls” whereas the system can display “a map of the campus and superimposes information about the handset and its user on the map, showing the location of the handset.” Laird ¶ 9 (emphasis added). Nevertheless, Laird does not teach using well-known location technology to ascertain alert information that includes the location of mobile devices in a vicinity and then transmit that alert information to the mobile devices in the vicinity as recited in claim 2. We agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, therefore we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments seeking to distinguish claim 2 from the cited prior art. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 2, as well as independent claims 13, 18 and 21 commensurate in scope. We reverse the anticipation rejection of dependent claim 3. We also reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 4-12, 14-17, 19, 20 and 22-24 because the cited references do not address Laird’s noted deficiency. Appeal 2020-006041 Application 16/408,731 7 CONCLUSION Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2, 3, 13, 18, 21 102 Laird 2, 3, 13, 18, 21 4-12, 14-17, 19, 20 103 Laird, Narayan 4-12, 14- 17, 19, 20 22, 23 103 Laird, Narayan, Neeraj 22, 23 24 103 Laird, Short 24 Overall Outcome 2-24 REVERSED