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 .
● This action is responsive to the following communication: RCE filed on 6/16/2026.
● 1, 3-8, 10-14, 16-20 are currently pending; claims 2, 9, and 15 have been canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
● Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-14, 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buddihy et al (US 20050137465) in view of Nyschick (US 20150359481)..
Regarding claim 1, Buddily discloses a computer-implemented method of detecting periled individuals within a property, the method comprising:
receiving, by the hardware controller, sensor data (sensor data, figs. 4-7) from at least one sensor located within the property, of a plurality of sensors installed at various locations (figs. 4-7) on the property;
analyzing the sensor data by one or more processors, wherein analyzing the sensor data includes analyzing sensor data (sensor data, figs. 4-7) associated with a room of the property, and wherein analyzing the sensor data is based on accessing baseline sensor data associated with the room of the property (fig. 1);
based upon the analyzing the sensor data, determining that an individual located in the room of the property has remained in bed for an abnormal amount of time (abnormal sleep time, fig. 7);
responsive to determining that the individual in the room of the property has remained in bed for the abnormal amount of time (abnormal sleep time outside of threshold limit, fig. 7), generating a notification indicating (contact caregiver if wake-up time is outside of limit, fig. 7) that the individual in the room of the property remained in bed for the abnormal amount of time; and communicating the notification to an electronic device (fig. 1).
Buddily fails to teach and/or suggest wherein the sensor data includes imaging data, and to determine sleep data based upon imaging data.
Nyschick, in the same field of endeavor for monitoring system, teaches wherein the sensor data includes imaging data (computer vision sensor 105 includes imaging sensor for monitoring sleep patterns/stats of residents, figs. 1,2, 3, pars. 67) for monitoring sleeping data/sleeping patterns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying monitoring system of Buddily to include wherein the sensor data includes imaging data as taught by Myschick to improve monitoring of individual by including imaging data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Buddily with Myschick to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Cuddihy further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data includes imaging data (fig.3).
Regarding claim 3, Cuddihy further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data includes motion data (motion data, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Cuddihy further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the electronic device is a personal digital assistant device (PDA, par. 26).
Regarding claim 5, Nyschick further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the imaging data is further based on accessing baseline imaging data (imaging data, pars. 65-67) associated with the individual.
Regarding claim 6, Cuddihy further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein analyzing the imaging data based on accessing baseline imaging data associated with the individual includes learning a routine (e.g. sleeping pattern, figs. 4-7) associated with the individual.
Regarding claim 7, Cuddihy further discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the imaging data comprises: analyzing the imaging data to determine a current condition of the individual; receiving updated imaging data from the at least one sensor; and determining, from the updated imaging data, that a current condition is maintained for a threshold period of time (fig. 7).
Regarding claims 8, 10-14, 16-20 recite limitations that are similar and in the same scope of invention as to those in claims 1, 3-7 above; therefore, claims 8, 10-14, 16-20 are rejected for the same rejection rationale/basis as described in claims 1, 3-7.
Conclusion
● The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(1) US 20120313785 to Hanson et al, teaches a system for monitoring sleep patterns of patient using imaging data (camera’s system).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIERRY L PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-7439. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 11-6.
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, Hai Phan can be reached at (571)272-6338. 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.
/THIERRY L PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Prosecution Insights