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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding 35 USC 103 rejection, applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejected Claims 1-7 have overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made in view of He et al. (US 20150112154 ).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolic et al. (US 20210034053 A1) in view of Patel et al. (US 20190099118 A1), Kojima (US 5694116 A), and He et al. (US 20150112154 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Nikolic discloses a system for monitoring pilot biometrics (Abstract, systems and methods for monitoring, communicating and safeguarding the health and alertness of a pilot during operation of an aircraft. The state of the pilot is monitored using biometric sensors), comprising:
a seat belt assembly (biometric sensor suite – element 78) comprising at least one over-shoulder strap (Paragraph 0038, the biometric sensor suite 78 includes N biometric sensors 78a-78n (where 78n indicates the N-th biometric sensor), which may be integrated into flight deck panels or a pilot seat or worn by a pilot; Paragraph 0041, the biometric sensor suite 78 may include a chest strap and/or a head band with various contact sensors in contact with the pilot's skin);
at least one biometric device (pilot state detector – element 72) carried by the at least one over-shoulder strap (Paragraph 0041, the biometric sensor suite 78 may include a chest strap and/or a head band with various contact sensors in contact with the pilot's skin; [Examiner’s Note, the pilot state detector (72) comprises a biometric sensor suite (78) which is placed on strap contacting the pilot.]), the at least one biometric device configured to measure biometrics continuously (Figure 4; Paragraph 0049, the pilot state detector 72 continues to monitor the state of the pilot); and
an aircraft interface device (automatic control processor – element 20) communicatively coupled (Figure 3; Paragraph 0035, onboard the aircraft, the pilot status is detected by a pilot state detector 72. Pilot state data acquired by the pilot state detector 72 is sent to an automatic control processor 20. The automatic control processor 20 is configured to trigger the autopilot function in the autoflight computer 6 to secure the pilot and control the aircraft in response to receipt of pilot state data indicating a deficiency in pilot health or alertness of a specified severity) to the at least one biometric device (pilot state detector – element 72);
wherein;
the at least one biometric device (pilot state detector – element 72) is configured to obtain and communicate the measured biometrics to the aircraft interface device (automatic control processor – element 20; Paragraph 0004, biometric sensors are available which may be integrated into flight deck panels or a pilot seat or worn by a pilot, and which are able communicate with both onboard and offboard systems. The biometric sensors are configured to detect real-time changes in pilot health/alertness); and
the aircraft interface device (automatic control processor – element 20) is configured to communicate (Paragraph 0034, the aircraft 70 includes an aircraft communication system 84 that is capable of communicating wirelessly with the airline operations center 90 and air traffic control 98) with an aircraft communication system (airline operations center – element 90);
the aircraft interface device (automatic control processor – element 20) is configured to issue, to the aircraft communication system (airline operations center – element 90), a warning (Figure 3 and 4; Paragraph 0047, the automatic control processor 20 begins progressive alerting (step 106). More specifically, an automated series of alerts are provided to the pilot. Data representing the pilot's responses, or lack thereof, is logged (e.g., stored in a non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage medium) (step 108). The logged data may then be processed to cross-check against a false detection of pilot incapacity, for example, by issuing a Caution or Warning level message with a visual component provided by an engine-indicating and crew-alerting system (EICAS) and an aural component; [Examiner’s note, refer to the Annotated Figure 1 on how a warning is issued]) and a first protocol stored in a data storage of the aircraft interface device indicating a first action to be taken by at least one of a pilot and the flight crew (Paragraph 0046, as part of the analysis, the pilot state detector 72 determines whether the value of any pilot health/alertness parameter has exceeded a specified threshold or not. If a specified threshold is exceeded, the pilot state detector 72 sends a signal notifying the automatic control processor 20 that the threshold has been exceeded. In the alternative, the automatic control processor 20 may receive a signal from an onboard trigger mechanism manually operated by a member of the flight crew or from an offboard trigger mechanism 96 manually operated by a responsible person at the airline operations center, which signal notifies the automatic control processor 20 that the pilot is or may be incapacitated); and
the aircraft interface device (automatic control processor – element 20) is configured to issue, to the aircraft communication system (airline operations center – element 90), when the measured biometrics exceeds the threshold biometrics value (Figure 4; Paragraph 0046, As part of the analysis, the pilot state detector 72 determines whether the value of any pilot health/alertness parameter has exceeded a specified threshold or not. If a specified threshold is exceeded, the pilot state detector 72 sends a signal notifying the automatic control processor 20 that the threshold has been exceeded), an alarm (Paragraph 0047, the automatic control processor 20 begins progressive alerting (step 106). More specifically, an automated series of alerts are provided to the pilot. Data representing the pilot's responses, or lack thereof, is logged (e.g., stored in a non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage medium) (step 108)) and a second protocol stored in the data storage of the aircraft interface device indicating a second action to be taken
PNG
media_image1.png
672
941
media_image1.png
Greyscale
by at least one of the pilot and the flight crew (Paragraphs 0048-0052).
Annotated Figure 1 | Pathway for issuing a warning based off of pilot’s health data. The pilot state detector (72) comprises of the biometric sensor data (78), the device that collects the pilot’s health data, and pilot state data processor (76), processor which compares the data to a threshold. If the processor identifies the pilot’s health data exceeded the threshold, then the automatic control processor (20) sends an alert; that alert can be logged as a caution or warning. Through the aircraft communication system (84) the warning is sent to the airline operations center (90).
Nikolic fails to expressly discloses the biometric device includes a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor and when the measured biometrics approaches a threshold biometrics value. However, Patel teaches a photoplethysmogram (PPG) sensor system. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the biometric sensor suite of Nikolic to have the photoplethysmogram sensor of Patel because Patel teaches in Paragraph 0024, the bio-signal sensor may be an electrocardiogram (ECG), an electromyogram (EMG), a photoplethysmogram PPG, an electroneurogram (ENG), an electroencephalogram (EEG), a motion sensor, an accelerometer, a thermal sensor, or a thermometer. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Furthermore, Kojima teaches when the measured biometrics approaches a threshold biometrics value, a warning and a new route is provided to the driver (judgement unit – element 1; Figure 2; Column 5 lines 7-15, the alarm at level 1 is given at a step S11. The alarm at level 1 is set to a smaller volume than that of the alarm at level 2. At the same time, a predetermined fail-safe operation is carried out by giving information on a place to take a rest and/or a road on which the automotive vehicle is traveling or to travel, to the driver. For example, a map showing a nearby place to take a rest (service area or parking area) and the route thereto is displayed by the navigation system 5 to advise the driver to take a rest; [Examiner’s note, the judgment unit (1) is executing the routine set in Figure 2]). By broadest reasonable interpretation, the multiple thresholds can mean to approach a singular threshold, where the alarm at level 1 is set at approaching the higher threshold. Whereas the alarm at level 2 is more severe, in comparison to an alarm at level 1, thus indicating the higher threshold is reached or exceeded.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to combine the biometric sensor suite and the PPG sensor of Nikolic in view of Patel to incorporate the teachings of the judgement unit from Kojima because it provides safety measures to keep the individual safe when they are not fully alert (Column 5 lines 35-44, a question is put to the driver based on his detected vigilance level X, and then according to a response of the driver to the question, warning (alarming) and a predetermined failsafe operation such as decrease of the output power of the engine are carried out. Therefore, it is possible to determine the condition of the driver while driving an automotive vehicle with enhanced accuracy and take more appropriate safety measures in response to the condition of the driver than when the condition of the driver is determined simply based on his vigilance level).
Nikolic in view of Patel and Kojima are silent in teaching an additional personnel to provide aid to an injured patient based on a warning and or alert from a device which measures the patient’s biometric data;
He teaches an additional personnel to provide aid to an injured patient based on a warning and or alert from a device which measures the patient’s biometric data (He | Figure 26; Paragraphs 0903-0907). Nikolic in view of Patel and Kojima teach at least one pilot and flight crew and He teaches an additional personnel to provide aid to an injured patient based on a warning and or alert from a device which measures the patient’s biometric data. One having an ordinary skill in the art the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the biometric sensor suite Nikolic in view of Patel and Kojima to incorporate the teachings of the devices (100) from He because doing so would allow an additional team to receive notifications via the biometric device to locate the injured individual and provide immediate medical care required for stabilization and rapid extraction (He | Paragraph 0903-0907).
Regarding Claim 2, Nikolic in view of Patel, Kojima, and He teaches the system according to claim 1, the primary reference of Nikolic is silent on the biometric device is embedded in webbing of the at least one over-shoulder strap, whereas Patel teaches wherein the at least one biometric device (Patel | bio-signal sensor of the wearable device – element 60) is embedded in webbing of the at least one over-shoulder strap (Patel | Abstract, a method of monitoring a health condition of a driver of a vehicle includes activating a wearable device that is configured to provide a driver health signal and receiving the driver health signal at a controller).
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to combine the chest strap of the biometric sensor suite of Nikolic in view of Patel, Kojima, and He to incorporate the teachings of the biometric device embedded in the shoulder strap from Patel because Patel teaches in Paragraph 0023, the term “wearable” is understood to mean that the device may be worn by the driver as a watch, a bracelet, a necklace, a chest strap, an arm cuff, a patch, a headband, an ankle monitor, a belt, an ear clip, a helmet, a necklace, a device embedded into a vehicle seat, or may be incorporated into a vehicle seat belt. Regardless, the wearable device 60 is in direct contact with the driver's body such that the bio signal sensor may monitor or measure or track a bio signal. All claimed elements are known in prior art and could have been combined with no change to their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed.
Regarding Claim 4, Nikolic in view of Patel, Kojima, and He teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the measured biometrics include at least one of a heart rate (Nikolic | Paragraph 0040, the biometric sensor suite 78 may also include sensors that detect electrical activity of the pilot, such as sensors that detect the heart rate of the pilot by measuring electrical signals in the body that regulate heart beats), and an oxygen saturation (Nikolic | Paragraph 0042, if oxygen is needed (e.g., due to depressurization or breathing difficulty) other systems may be integrated into the seat). By broadest reasonable interpretation, one can determine the measured biometrics include oxygen saturation of the pilot because if the pilot is experiencing difficulty breathing or this is depressurization, the biometric sensor suite may indicate a low oxygen saturation reading.
The primary reference from Nikolic does not expressly disclose the measured biometrics to include blood pressure, Patel teaches of the measured biometrics (Patel | bio-signal sensor of the wearable device – element 60) to include at least one of heart rate (Patel | Paragraph 0024, the bio-signal sensor may monitor, measure, or track a bio-signal, such as, a driver's heart rate, a driver's blood pressure, a driver's blood sugar, a driver's oxygen saturation level (SpO2), a driver's respiration rate, a driver's heart rate/pulse rate, a driver's galvanic skin response (GSR), driver's body movements, or driver alertness). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the biometric sensor suite of Nikolic in view of Patel, Kojima, and He to incorporate the teachings of the bio-signal sensor from Patel because the heart rate detection of the individual can help prevent a serious medical emergency and or an accident (Patel | Paragraph 0005, a wearable device that is configured to provide a driver health signal and receiving the driver health signal at a controller. The method outputs for display a warning responsive to the driver health signal being indicative of at least one of an impending driver health event or current driver health event).
Regarding Claim 5, Nikolic in view of Patel, Kojima, and He teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the threshold biometrics value is stored in a data storage (Nikolic | Figure 3; Paragraph 0043, the pilot state data processor 76 is communicatively coupled to receive pilot state data from the biometric sensor suite 78 and then process the received pilot state data in accordance with the logical rules and mathematical operations specified by the pilot state detection algorithm 74…the pilot state data processor 76 is configured (e.g., programmed) to determine whether any symptoms manifested by the pilot in question exceed predetermined (individualized) thresholds. More specifically, the pilot state data processor 76 is configured to convert the biometric sensor outputs into digital code representing pilot state data, store that pilot state data in a non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage medium and then process the pilot state data to determine whether the value of any pilot health/alertness parameter has exceeded a specified threshold or not) of the aircraft interface device (Nikolic | automatic control processor – element 20; Paragraph 0058, the terms “computer” and “processor” both refer to devices comprising a processing unit (e.g., a central processing unit) and some form of memory (e.g., a non-transitory tangible computer-readable storage medium) for storing a program which is executable by the processing unit. For example, pilot state data processor 76, automatic control processor 20, autoflight computer 6 and flight control system 8 may be communicatively coupled to form a “computer system” onboard the aircraft; [Examiner’s note, the received pilot state data is compared to a threshold by the pilot state data processor. In order for this processor to function, a data storage is required.]).
Regarding Claim 6, Nikolic in view of Patel, Kojima, and He teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the threshold biometrics value is based on trend activity of the measured biometrics (Nikolic | Paragraph 0043, the pilot state data processor 76 is configured (e.g., programmed) to determine whether any symptoms manifested by the pilot in question exceed predetermined (individualized) thresholds…the specified threshold may be individualized in the sense that the threshold was derived from an analysis of historical biometric data for an individual pilot. In this case, different thresholds will be applied to different pilots for the purpose of detecting pilot fatigue or other adverse health events; [Examiner’s note, one can determine the trend activity of the measured biometrics is the threshold from an analysis of historical biometric data for an individual pilot. The trend activity for one pilot may not be the same for another pilot.]).
Regarding Claim 7, Nikolic in view of Patel, Kojima, and He teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one biometric device includes a network interface module (Nikolic | Figure 6; Paragraph 0056, the airline operations center 90 is in ongoing communication with the aircraft 70 by way of wireless communication (voice and/or video) and control signals 132. Such ongoing wireless communication is facilitated by way of ground-based antennas 130 or satellite 82; [Examiner’s note, one can determine the ground-based antennas and or satellite encompasses a network interface module.]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikolic et al. (US 20210034053 A1) in view of Patel et al. (US 20190099118 A1), Kojima (US 5694116 A), He et al. (US 20150112154 A1), and Nousiainen et al. (US 20170202514 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Nikolic in view of Patel, Kojima, and He teaches the system according to Claim 1, as set forth and cited above. Nikolic in view of Patel, Kojima, and He teaches the biometric sensor suite which may include a chest strap, shoulder strap, with various contact sensors in contact with the pilot's skin (Nikolic | Paragraph 0041). They do not expressly disclose the biometric device is carried in a sleeve slidably.
However, Nousiainen teaches the at least one biometric device (Nousiainen | biometric monitor – element 10) is carried in a sleeve slidably (Nousiainen | sliding part – element 302) coupled to the at least one over-shoulder strap (Nousiainen | strap – 300). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to combine the chest strap of the biometric sensor suite of Nikolic in view of Patel, Kojima, and He to have the biometric monitor’s slidable strap of Nousiainen because the slidable strap allows for the user to adjust the device onto themselves in order for the device to collect the desired measurements (Paragraph 0093, The sliding part 302 has been equipped with one or more patterns, i.e. indicators 310, to indicate the tightness of the strap. When the strap is pulled (i.e. when a user fastens the portable biometric monitor comprising the strap, for example, onto his wrist and tightens the strap), the strap stretches and an indicator hole 308 moves in relation to the non-stretchable sliding part 302). The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, A.).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 SRISTI DIVINA GOMES whose telephone number is (571)272-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30-4:30 & Friday 7:30-3:30.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 571-272-3672. 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.
/SRISTI DIVINA GOMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791