DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
This Office Action responds to reply filed on 4/2/24 regarding application 16/994255 that was initially filed on 8/14/2020. Claims 1-26 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-10, 19, 22, 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims include a limitation of biometric data. However, the specification nor original claims do not disclose biometric data. Although there is a disclosure of heart rate, breathing, and temperature, the disclosure is limited to them, not a broader concept of biometric data. The limitation of biometric data including a heart rate, for example, still is broader than heart rate. All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
1. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls et al., US 2009/0280705 A1 (hereinafter Puls) in view of Shalon et al., US 2011/0125063 A1 (hereinafter Shalon).
As for claim 1, Puls discloses a system for monitoring ([0018], e.g., detecting the danger of drowning) a swimmer ([0004], e.g., swimming and [0018], e.g., person) in a swimming area, comprising: at least one alarm indicator ([0073], e.g., alarm and [0076], e.g., alarm) for indicating an alarm condition ([0073], e.g., alarm and [0076], e.g., alarm); a first sensor ([0068], e.g., pulse sensor) adapted to generate first swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., pulse frequency) about a status ([0018], e.g., drowning) of the swimmer; a second sensor ([0058], e.g., breathing sensor) adapted to generate second swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) about the status of the swimmer; a processor ([0048], e.g., control unit and program and Fig. 2) being configured to execute instructions to receive the first swimmer status data over a communication network ([0048], e.g., transferred, note the network to transfer the data); the processor ([0048], e.g., control unit and program and Fig. 2) also configured to execute instructions to receive the second swimmer status data over the communication network ([0048], e.g., transferred, note the network to transfer the data); the processor also configured to monitor the second swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) over time ([0048], e.g., continuously) to monitor swimmer activity ([0068], e.g., breathing) over time; the processor also configured to execute instructions to determine that the swimmer is in a normal state not in distress ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note that normal state not in distress when the condition is not met) based on activity of the swimmer determined from analyzing (element (A) in Fig. 2) the second swimmer status data during said monitoring ([0018], e.g., detecting the danger of drowning); the processor also configured to execute instructions to determine that the swimmer has transitioned ([0073], e.g., (A), (B), (D) and (E) fulfilled and [0076], e.g., (A), (B), (D) and (E), note the first meeting the conditions indicates the transition) from the normal state ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note that normal state not in distress when the condition is not met) to being in distressed state ([0065], e.g., drowning) based on a change in the activity of the swimmer determined from analyzing (element (B) in Fig. 2) said first swimmer status data for indications (Fig. 2, element activation in (B)) of distress and analyzing (element (A) in Fig. 2) said second swimmer status data for indications (Fig. 2, element activation in (A)) that the swimmer is at a reduced activity level (element (A) in Fig. 2, note the negative slope of increase of breathing: threshold value exceeded); and the processor being configured to execute instructions to trigger the alarm condition ([0073], e.g., alarm and [0076], e.g., alarm) when (Fig. 2, element activation in (A) and (B)) the swimmer is in the distressed state ([0065], e.g., drowning), wherein said second sensor collects a different type ([0068], e.g., pulse and [0068], e.g., breathing) of data than said first sensor.
Puls does not explicitly disclose, but, Shalon teaches a processor ([0431], e.g., processor) located remotely ([0431], e.g., remote) from the swimmer ([0287], e.g., swimmers and [0431], e.g., sensors).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls and Shalon before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of systems and methods for monitoring and modifying behavior of Shalon with a motivation to make the sensor system on the body lighter and smaller by using the remote processor that processes a portion or all of necessary computations.
As for claim 2, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Puls further discloses said first sensor is worn ([0062], e.g., wears) by the swimmer for generating said first swimmer status data.
As for claim 7, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Puls further discloses said first sensor includes a sensor ([0068], e.g., pulse sensor) configured generate the first swimmer status data including biometric data from the swimmer about swimmer heart, breathing, or thermal status.
As for claim 8, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 7. In addition, Puls further discloses said biometric data includes a heart rate ([0068], e.g., pulse sensor) of the swimmer.
As for claim 11, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1. In addition, Puls further discloses said first sensor includes a sensor configured generate the first swimmer status data including data indicating a motion of the swimmer ([0068], e.g., pulse sensor).
As for claim 14, the claim recites a system of the system of claim 1, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 15, the claim recites a system of the system of claim 2, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 19, the claim recites a system of the system of claim 7, and is similarly analyzed.
2. Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls in view of Shalon, and further in view of Richards, US 7839291 B1 (hereinafter Richards).
As for claim 3, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Puls as modified by Shalon does not explicitly teach, but, Richards teaches said second sensor includes a video camera (col. 3, ll. 38-58, e.g., camera 200) for generating said second swimmer status data including video of the swimmer.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Shalon, and Richards before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of water safety monitor systems and methods of Richards with a motivation to increase the accuracy and/or detectability of the monitoring by using the camera systems.
As for claim 4, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 3.
Puls as modified by Shalon does not explicitly teach, but, Richards teaches said video camera is mounted about said swimming area configured to monitor said swimming area (col. 3, ll. 38-58, e.g., camera 200).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Shalon, and Richards before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of water safety monitor systems and methods of Richards with a motivation to increase the accuracy and/or detectability of the monitoring by using the camera systems.
As for claim 16, the claim recites a system of the system of claim 3, and is similarly analyzed.
As for claim 17, the claim recites a system of the system of claim 4, and is similarly analyzed.
3. Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls in view of Shalon, Richards, and further in view of Amano et al., US 2007/0268369 A1 (hereinafter Amano).
As for claim 5, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 3. In addition, Puls further discloses said alarm condition includes displaying a location of the swimmer that is in distress on a display ([0075], e.g., display).
Puls as modified by Shalon and Richards does not explicitly teach, but, Amano teaches the processor is configured to execute instructions to zoom in on an image of the swimmer that is in distress for display using said second swimmer status data ([0003], e.g., zoom and enlarged).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Shalon, Richards, and Amano before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of automatic imaging method and apparatus of Amano with a motivation to provide an easy and quick understanding of the situation such as identification of the swimmer by taking advantage of zoomed video information.
As for claim 18, the claim recites a system of the system of claim 5, and is similarly analyzed.
4. Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls in view of Shalon, and further in view of Pierson et al., US 2008/0266118 A1 (hereinafter Pierson).
As for claim 6, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Puls as modified by Shalon does not explicitly teach, but, Pierson teaches said alarm indicator is worn ([0020], e.g., worn) by the swimmer, and wherein said alarm indicator includes an audio alarm ([0022], e.g., audible) to indicate that the swimmer is in distress.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Shalon, and Pierson before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of personal emergency condition detection and safety systems and methods of Pierson with a motivation to properly monitor heart or pulse rate or other physiological function by using the snug fit on user’s wrist as taught by Pierson ([0021]).
As for claim 10, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 7.
Puls as modified by Shalon does not explicitly teach, but, Pierson teaches said biometric data includes a temperature of the swimmer ([0034], e.g., body temperature).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Shalon, and Pierson before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of personal emergency condition detection and safety systems and methods of Pierson with a motivation to properly monitor heart or pulse rate or other physiological function by using the snug fit on user’s wrist as taught by Pierson ([0021]).
5. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls in view of Richards.
As for claim 9, Puls discloses a system for monitoring ([0018], e.g., detecting the danger of drowning) a swimmer ([0004], e.g., swimming and [0018], e.g., person) in a swimming area, comprising: at least one alarm indicator ([0073], e.g., alarm and [0076], e.g., alarm) for indicating an alarm condition; a first sensor ([0058], e.g., breathing sensor) adapted to generate first swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) about a status ([0018], e.g., drowning) of the swimmer; a second sensor ([0068], e.g., pulse sensor) adapted to generate second swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., pulse frequency) about the status of the swimmer; a processor ([0048], e.g., control unit and program and Fig. 2) being configured to execute instructions to receive the first swimmer status data over a communication network ([0048], e.g., transferred, note the network to transfer the data); the processor ([0048], e.g., control unit and program and Fig. 2) also configured to execute instructions to receive the second swimmer status data over the communication network ([0048], e.g., transferred, note the network to transfer the data); the processor also configured to monitor the second swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., pulse frequency) over time ([0048], e.g., continuously) to monitor swimmer activity ([0068], e.g., pulse) over time; the processor also configured to execute instructions to determine that the swimmer is in a normal state not in distress ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note that normal state not in distress when the condition is not met) based on activity of the swimmer determined from analyzing (element (B) in Fig. 2) the second swimmer status data during said monitoring ([0018], e.g., detecting the danger of drowning); the processor also configured to execute instructions to determine that the swimmer has transitioned ([0073], e.g., (A), (B), (D) and (E) fulfilled and [0076], e.g., (A), (B), (D) and (E), note the first meeting the conditions indicates the transition) from the normal state ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note that normal state not in distress when the condition is not met) to being in distressed state ([0065], e.g., drowning) based on a change in the activity of the swimmer determined from analyzing (element (A) in Fig. 2) said first swimmer status data for indications (Fig. 2, element activation in (A)) of distress and analyzing (element (B) in Fig. 2) said second swimmer status data for indications (Fig. 2, element activation in (B)) that the swimmer is at a reduced activity level (element (B) in Fig. 2, note the negative slope of increase of pulse: threshold value exceeded); and the processor being configured to execute instructions to trigger the alarm condition ([0073], e.g., alarm and [0076], e.g., alarm) when (Fig. 2, element activation in (A) and (B)) the swimmer is in the distressed state ([0065], e.g., drowning), wherein said second sensor collects a different type ([0068], e.g., pulse and [0068], e.g., breathing) of data than said first sensor; first sensor includes a sensor ([0058], e.g., breathing sensor) configured generate the first swimmer status data including biometric data ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) from the swimmer about swimmer heart, breathing, or thermal status; wherein said biometric data includes data about the breathing ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) of the swimmer.
Puls does not explicitly disclose, but, Richards teaches a processor (col. 2, l. 59-col. 3, l. 4, e.g., processor) located remotely (col. 3, ll. 38-58, e.g., camera 200 and system 10) from the swimmer (col. 4, ll. 8-18, e.g., swimming).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls and Richards before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of water safety monitor systems and methods of Richards with a motivation to increase the accuracy and/or detectability of the monitoring by using the camera systems.
6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls in view of Shalon, and further in view of Hollis et al., US 2004/0196180 A1 (hereinafter Hollis).
As for claim 12, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Puls as modified by Shalon does not explicitly teach, but, Hollis teaches said first sensor includes a sensor configured generate the first swimmer status data including data indicating a time duration when at least a portion of the swimmer is below water ([0028], e.g., measuring depth and time during a dive).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Shalon, and Hollis before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of dive computer with global positioning system receiver of Hollis with a motivation to reduce false alarm when the time under water is very short.
7. Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls in view of Shalon, Richards, and further in view of Meniere, US 6133838 (hereinafter Meniere).
As for claim 13, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 1.
Puls as modified by Shalon does not explicitly teach, but, Richards teaches said second sensor is a video camera (col. 3, ll. 38-58, e.g., camera 200) configured to monitor the swimmer.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Shalon, and Richards before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of water safety monitor systems and methods of Richards with a motivation to increase the accuracy and/or detectability of the monitoring by using the camera systems.
Puls as modified by Shalon and Richards does not explicitly teach, but, Meniere teaches the processor being also configured to, in response to an alarm condition, display an image on a display of the swimmer when that swimmer is in distress (column 9, lines 21 – 25, e.g., displayed).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Shalon, Richards, and Meniere before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of system for monitoring a swimming pool to prevent drowning accidents of Meniere with a motivation to detect with absolute reliability all cases of movement giving cause for concern which may lead to warning as taught by Meniere (column 9, lines 26 – 12).
As for claim 20, the claim recites a system of the system of claim 13, and is similarly analyzed.
8. Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls in view of Anderson et al., US 2009/0303055 A1 (hereinafter Anderson), Crump et al., US 2010/0016745 A1 (hereinafter Crump), and further in view of Meniere.
As for claim 21, Puls discloses a system for monitoring a swimmer ([0004], e.g., swimming and [0018], e.g., person) in a swimming area, comprising: at least one alarm indicator ([0073], e.g., alarm and [0076], e.g., alarm) for indicating an alarm condition, said alarm indicator including a display ([0075], e.g., display); a first sensor configured to be worn ([0062], e.g., wears) by the swimmer and adapted to generate first swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., pulse frequency) about a status of the swimmer; generate second swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) about an activity level ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) of the swimmer; a processor configured to execute instructions to receive the first swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., pulse frequency); the processor also configured to execute instructions to receive the second swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) over a communication network ([0048], e.g., transferred, note the network to transfer the data) or the wireless communications network; the processor also configured to execute instructions to determine that the swimmer is not in distress ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note that normal state not in distress when the condition is not met) based on the activity level (Fig. 2, element inactivation in (A)) of the swimmer determined from analyzing (element (A) in Fig. 2) the second swimmer status data; the processor also configured to execute instructions to analyze (element (B) in Fig. 2) said first swimmer status data for first indications (Fig. 2, element (B), note that the first-time satisfaction of the condition indicates transitions from nondistress to distress status) that the swimmer has transitioned from being not in distress ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note that normal state not in distress when the condition is not met) to being in distress ([0065], e.g., drowning); the processor further configured to execute instructions to analyze (element (A) in Fig. 2) said second swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) for second indications (Fig. 2, element (A), note that the first-time satisfaction of the condition indicates transitions from nondistress to distress status) that the swimmer has transitioned from being not in distress ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note that normal state not in distress when the condition is not met) to being in distress ([0065], e.g., drowning) by detecting a transition from a normal activity level to a reduced activity level (element (A) in Fig. 2, note the negative slope of increase of breathing: threshold value exceeded); and the processor also configured to execute instructions to trigger the alarm condition ([0073], e.g., alarm and [0076], e.g., alarm) when both said first indication (Fig. 2, element (B), note that the first-time satisfaction of the condition indicates transitions from nondistress to distress status) and said second indication (Fig. 2, element (A), note that the first-time satisfaction of the condition indicates transitions from nondistress to distress status) indicate that the swimmer has transitioned from being not in distress ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note that normal state not in distress when the condition is not met) to being in distress ([0065], e.g., drowning).
Puls does not explicitly disclose, but, Anderson teaches a video camera ([0050], e.g., camera) configured to be placed in or near the swimming area ([0032], e.g., pools) and adapted to generate second swimmer status data ([0039], e.g., characteristics are observed).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls and Anderson before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of above-water monitoring of swimming pools of Anderson with a motivation to increase accuracy of the monitoring.
Puls as modified by Anderson does not explicitly teach, but, Crump teaches receive data ([0040], e.g., data) over a wireless ([0040], e.g., wireless networks) communication network.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Anderson, and Crump before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of mobile wireless customizable health and condition monitor of Crump with a motivation to provide a flexibility in the system configuration by using the wireless network that does not require cables to transmit the data.
Puls as modified by Anderson and Crump does not explicitly teach, but, Meniere teaches said alarm condition including displaying an image of the swimmer in distress on the display (column 9, lines 21 – 25, e.g., displayed).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Anderson, Crump, and Meniere before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of system for monitoring a swimming pool to prevent drowning accidents of Meniere with a motivation to detect with absolute reliability all cases of movement giving cause for concern which may lead to warning as taught by Meniere (column 9, lines 26 – 12).
As for claim 22, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 21. In addition, Puls further discloses said first sensor includes a sensor configured generate the first swimmer status data including biometric data about heart, breathing, or thermal status from the swimmer ([0068], e.g., pulse sensor).
9. Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls in view of Richards, and further in view of Crump.
As for claim 23, Puls discloses a system for monitoring a swimmer ([0004], e.g., swimming and [0018], e.g., person) in a swimming area, comprising: at least one alarm indicator ([0073], e.g., alarm and [0076], e.g., alarm) for indicating an alarm condition, said alarm indicator including a display ([0075], e.g., display); a first sensor configured to be worn ([0062], e.g., wears) by the swimmer and adapted to generate first swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., pulse frequency) including biometric information ([0068], e.g., pulse sensor) about heart, breathing, or thermal status of the swimmer; a second sensor ([0058], e.g., breathing sensor) adapted to generate second swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) including information about an activity level ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) of the swimmer; a processor being configured to execute instructions to receive the first swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., pulse frequency) over a communication network ([0048], e.g., transferred, note the network to transfer the data); the processor also configured to execute instructions to analyze (element (B) in Fig. 2) said first swimmer status data to determine when the swimmer exhibits biometric parameters ([0068], e.g., pulse sensor) indicating that the swimmer is in distress ([0065], e.g., drowning); the processor also configured to execute instructions to analyze (element (A) in Fig. 2) said second swimmer status data to determine that the swimmer is in a normal state with the swimmer exhibiting normal swimming activity levels ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note the time when the condition is not met) indicating that the swimmer is not in distress ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note that normal state not in distress when the condition is not met); the processor also configured to execute instructions to analyze (element (A) in Fig. 2) said second swimmer status data ([0068], e.g., breathing frequency) to determine that the swimmer exhibits lower activity levels (element (A) in Fig. 2, note the negative slope of increase of breathing: threshold value exceeded) indicating that the swimmer has transitioned ([0073], e.g., (A), (B), (D) and (E) fulfilled and [0076], e.g., (A), (B), (D) and (E), note the first meeting the conditions indicates the transition) from the normal state ([0073], e.g., fulfilled, note the time when the condition is not met) to being in distress ([0065], e.g., drowning); and the processor configured to execute instructions to trigger the alarm condition ([0073], e.g., alarm and [0076], e.g., alarm) when it is determined at least that ([0073], e.g., (A), (B), (D) and (E) fulfilled and [0076], e.g., (A), (B), (D) and (E)) the swimmer exhibits biometric parameters ([0068], e.g., pulse sensor) indicating that the swimmer is in distress ([0065], e.g., drowning) and also the swimmer exhibits lower activity level (element (A) in Fig. 2, note the negative slope of increase of breathing: threshold value exceeded) indicating that the swimmer is in distress ([0065], e.g., drowning), said alarm condition including indicating a location ([0075], e.g., display) and/or displaying an image of the swimmer.
Puls does not explicitly disclose, but, Richards teaches a processor (col. 2, l. 59-col. 3, l. 4, e.g., processor) located remotely (col. 3, ll. 38-58, e.g., camera 200 and system 10) from the swimmer (col. 4, ll. 8-18, e.g., swimming).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls and Richards before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of water safety monitor systems and methods of Richards with a motivation to increase the accuracy and/or detectability of the monitoring by using the camera systems.
Puls as modified by Richards does not explicitly teach, but, Crump teaches receive data ([0040], e.g., data) over a wireless ([0040], e.g., wireless networks) communication network.
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Richards, and Crump before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of mobile wireless customizable health and condition monitor of Crump with a motivation to provide a flexibility in the system configuration by using the wireless network that does not require cables to transmit the data.
As for claim 24, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 23. In addition, Puls further discloses said first sensor is configured to be worn by the swimmer ([0062], e.g., wears).
Puls as modified by Richards does not explicitly teach, but, Crump teaches adapted to transmit the second swimmer status information to the processor in a wireless manner ([0040], e.g., wireless networks).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Richards, and Crump before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of mobile wireless customizable health and condition monitor of Crump with a motivation to provide a flexibility in the system configuration by using the wireless network that does not require cables to transmit the data.
10. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls in view of Richards, Crump, and further in view of Anderson.
As for claim 25, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 24.
Puls as modified by Richards and Crump does not explicitly teach, but, Anderson teaches said second sensor is comprised of one or more video cameras located about the swimming location ([0050], e.g., camera).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Richards, Crump, and Anderson before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of above-water monitoring of swimming pools of Anderson with a motivation to increase accuracy of the monitoring.
11. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puls in view of Richards, Crump, Anderson, and further in view of Amano.
As for claim 26, most of limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of Claim 25.
Puls as modified by Richards, Crump, and Anderson does not explicitly teach, but, Amano teaches said alarm condition includes displaying a zoomed image of the swimmer in distress a display ([0003], e.g., zoom and enlarged).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made, having the references of Puls, Richards, Crump, Anderson, and Amano before him/her to modify the method and system for detecting a danger of drowning of Puls with the teaching of automatic imaging method and apparatus of Amano with a motivation to provide an easy and quick understanding of the situation such as identification of the swimmer by taking advantage of zoomed video information.
Response to Arguments
Applicant 's arguments filed 4/2/24 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Puls does not discuss swimmer activity level. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As presented above, the activity level is measured in (A) and (B) in Fig. 2 because the measurements of breathing and the pulse provide the activity levels. Although Applicant argues that Puls does not detect the transitioning to the reduced level, it is detected when the thresholds are exceeded.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1. US 2001/0054989 discloses color sequential display panels.
Conclusion
Applicant 's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH SUH whose telephone number is 571-270-7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:30 AM - 6:00 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, Jay Patel can be reached on 571-272-2988. 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.
/JOSEPH SUH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights