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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/21/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20120068848 A1 granted to Campbell et al. (hereinafter “Campbell” – previously presented) in view of 20160178392 to Goldfain (on IDS).
Regarding claim 1. (Currently Amended) Campbell discloses a heat response monitor (abstract, para [0008], [0033], [0066] “heat stroke, heat index”), comprising: an accelerometer configured to provide time series acceleration data of steps of a user of the heat response monitor (para [0011] “accelerometer reading”, para [0104] showing an example of the system in field); a core temperature sensor, configured to be worn by the user (para [0011], [0035] “portable device having one or more internal sensors…to monitor core temperature”), that continuously provides an estimated core temperature of the user (para [0011], [0035] “portable device having one or more internal sensors…to monitor core temperature”); an estimation device configured to receive the acceleration data (para [0011] “comparing the accelerometer reading to an animal activity rule”, para [0090] “define the animal activity level”); an enabler (para [0091] “condition assessment module”); and an output device coupled to the enabler (para 0086, 0091), provides a gait-based heat stroke risk score (para [0048] “display to the user an indication of the current physiological conditions…green, yellow, red lights”, para [0048] “continuously updated”), and wherein the estimation device is configured to use the estimated core temperature of the user to provide an estimated core temperature-based heat stroke risk score (para [0088], [0089] “calculate physiological stress/index as a function of core temperature”; [0094]), wherein the enabler is configured to use the gait-based heat stroke risk score and the estimated core temperature-based heat stroke risk score to determine if the user of the heat response monitor is at risk of heat injury (para [0010] “comparing the at least one condition of the animal to the at least one threshold value and producing an alarm signal if the at least one condition of the animal exceeds the at least one threshold value.”, para [0089], [0092], fig. 9), wherein the output device is configured to, based on a determination that the user is at risk of heat injury, issue a notification that the user is at risk of heat injury (para 0034, 0065, etc.), and wherein the output device is configured to transmit the notification to a location remote from the user or issue the notification as a physical notification selected from the group consisting of a vibration, an audible notification, and a visual notification (para 0064, etc.).
Campbell discloses that the maximum safe core temperature to depend on the activity level wherein the activity level is calculated by comparing the accelerometer reading to an animal activity rule (para [0011]). However, Campbell fails to disclose classify each step of the user of the heat response monitor as a walking step or a running step based on a step duration and a standard deviation of acceleration magnitude computed over a duration of the step, separate the classified steps into frames that last a predefined time period, and classify each frame as a walking or a running frame; compute an autocorrelation of the time series acceleration data in each acceleration axis x(t), y(t), and z(t) of each walking or running frame, and uses accelerometry-based functionality to determine a measure of gait stability for each respective classified frame determine a measure of gait stability for each respective classified frame.
Goldfain, from a similar field of endeavor teaches monitoring heat index having a wearable accelerometer to report levels of specific activity (para 0072, 0161, 0169). Goldfain teaches classifying the activity type based on activity value by counting the number of seconds spent walking, running and the distance traveled (para 0163-0166), determining the step rate (para 0171-0172) and monitoring/determining the gait over time (para 0142), for example a running gait pattern (para 0174, 0176). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Campbell with the teachings of Campbell with the teachings of Goldfain to provide the predictable result of monitoring the subject’s activity level.
Regarding claim 2. (Currently Amended) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the heat response monitor of claim 1, wherein the core temperature sensor i-s comprises a heart rate sensor (Goldfain, para 0082, 0197).
Regarding claim 4. (Currently Amended) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the heat response monitor of claim 1, wherein the estimation device detects individual steps in time domain, as data is received from the accelerometer, referred to as the accelerometry data (see rejection of claim 1, Goldfain para 0072, 0161, 0169, 0171-0176).
Regarding claim 5. (Previously Presented) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the heat response monitor of claim 4, wherein the accelerometry data consists of a time series of 3-axis accelerations, x(t) ={x_1(t),x_2(t),x_3(t)} from the accelerometer, with x_1 = vertical, x_2 = longitudinal, and x_3 = horizontal (para 0169, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), wherein the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced).
Regarding claim 6. (Original) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the heat response monitor of claim 1, wherein the accelerometer and the core temperature sensor are located in different modules (Campbell, para [0048]-[0049] “one or more activity monitoring devices, each arranged to obtain data indicative of parameters monitored during an activity session, In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) (Fact that a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results.)).
Regarding claim 7. (Original) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the heat response monitor of claim 1, wherein the accelerometer and the core temperature sensor are located in the same module (Goldfain, fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17. (Currently Amended) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the heat response monitor of claim 1, wherein the estimation device provides the gait-based heat stroke risk score as a function of a comparison of the gait stability measures for a respective frame to the gait stability measure of at least one previous frame of the same class (see rejection of claim 1, Goldfain fig. 33; providing continuous assessment).
Regarding claim 19. (New) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the heat response monitor of claim 1, wherein the location remote from the user comprises a central device configured to receive the transmitted determination that the user is at risk of heat injury (Goldfain, para 0048-0049, 0095-0096, 0113, etc.).
Regarding claim 20. (New) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the heat response monitor of claim 1, wherein the location remote from the user is configured to monitor health of the user and other individuals (Goldfain, para 0048-0049, 0095-0096, 0113, etc.).
Regarding claim 21. (New) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the heat response monitor of claim 1, wherein the location remote from the user is configured to notify the user that the user is at risk of heat injury (Goldfain, para 0048-0049, 0095-0096, 0113, etc.).
Regarding claim 11. (Currently Amended) Campbell discloses a system for monitoring a heat response of a subject (abstract, para [0008], [0033], [0066] “heat stroke, heat index”), the system comprising: an accelerometer to continuously provide time series acceleration data of the subject (para [0011] “accelerometer reading”, para [0104] showing an example of the system in field); a first sensor to continuously provide a first data corresponding to a physical parameter of the subject (para [0011], [0035] “portable device having one or more internal sensors…to monitor core temperature”); a processor, communicatively coupled, locally or remotely (para 0031), to the accelerometer and the first sensor (figs 1-2); estimate a core temperature of the subject as a function of the first data received from the first sensor (para [0011], [0035] “portable device having one or more internal sensors…to monitor core temperature”; para [0088], [0089] “calculate physiological stress/index as a function of core temperature”; [0094]); update a heat risk score (para [0048] “display to the user an indication of the current physiological conditions…green, yellow, red lights”, para [0048] “continuously updated”); and determine the heat response of the subject as a function of the updated heat risk score and the first data corresponding to the estimated core temperature of the subject (para [0048] “display to the user an indication of the current physiological conditions…green, yellow, red lights”, para [0048] “continuously updated”); and an output device, communicatively coupled to the processor, the output device configured to issue a notification of the determined heat response of the subject as instructed by the processor, wherein the output device is configured to transmit the notification to a location remote from the subject or issue the notification as a physical notification selected from the group consisting of a vibration, an audible notification, and a visual notification (para 0034, 0064-0065, etc.).
Campbell discloses that the maximum safe core temperature to depend on the activity level wherein the activity level is calculated by comparing the accelerometer reading to an animal activity rule (para [0011]). However, Campbell fails to disclose classify each step of the user of the heat response monitor as a walking step or a running step based on a step duration and a standard deviation of acceleration magnitude computed over a duration of the step, separate the classified steps into frames that last a predefined time period, and classify each frame as a walking or a running frame; compute an autocorrelation of the time series acceleration data in each acceleration axis x(t), y(t), and z(t) of each walking or running frame, and uses accelerometry-based functionality to determine a measure of gait stability for each respective classified frame determine a measure of gait stability for each respective classified frame.
Goldfain, from a similar field of endeavor teaches monitoring heat index having a wearable accelerometer to report levels of specific activity (para 0072, 0161, 0169). Goldfain teaches classifying the activity type based on activity value by counting the number of seconds spent walking, running and the distance traveled (para 0163-0166), determining the step rate (para 0171-0172) and monitoring/determining the gait over time (para 0142), for example a running gait pattern (para 0174, 0176). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Campbell with the teachings of Campbell with the teachings of Goldfain to provide the predictable result of monitoring the subject’s activity level.
Regarding claim 12. (Previously presented) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to:combine the updated heat risk score and the estimated core temperature into a fused risk score; and compare the fused risk score to a predetermined threshold value, wherein the subject is determined to be at risk due to heat if it is determined that the fused risk score is greater than the predetermined threshold value (Campbell para [0010] “comparing the at least one condition of the animal to the at least one threshold value and producing an alarm signal if the at least one condition of the animal exceeds the at least one threshold value.”, para [0089], [0092], fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13. (Currently Amended) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the system of claim 12, wherein:the first sensor is a heart rate sensor and the first data comprises heart rate data of the subject (Goldfain, para 0082, 0197).
Regarding claim 14. (Previously presented) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein:the processor is further configured to: classify a frame as a walking frame if: all of the steps in the frame are categorized as walking steps or there are more categorized walking steps than categorized running steps in the frame; and classify a frame as a running frame if: all of the steps in the frame are categorized as running steps or there are more categorized running steps than categorized walking steps in the frame (see rejection of claim 11, Goldfain, para 0171-0172).
Regarding claim 15. (Previously presented) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the processor is further configured to: update the heat risk score by comparing the gait stability level of a respective frame to the gait stability level of at least one previous frame of the same class (Goldfain, para 0126, 0197).
Regarding claim 16. (Previously presented) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the system of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to: update the heat risk score by comparing the respective gait stability levels of two or more consecutive frames of the same class (see rejection of claim 1, Goldfain fig. 33; providing continuous assessment).
Regarding claim 18. (Previously presented) Campbell as modified by Goldfain renders obvious the heat response monitor of claim 17, wherein the estimation device provides the gait-based heat stroke risk score as a function of a comparison of the respective gait stability measures for two or more consecutive frames of the same class (see rejection of claim 1, Goldfain fig. 33; providing continuous assessment).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights