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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment After Non-Final Rejection filed 10/02/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 13 are pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Hanabusa (US 2018/0338046) does not disclose “any personal security system that can be controlled by the user, and which is capable of sending audio/visual data to a remote service upon activation by the user,” the examiner respectfully disagrees. Hanabusa explicitly discloses portable wireless communication device 20, including cameras 23 and microphone 24, which may be activated by a user to record audio and video in response to a user input ([0018], [0101], [0107]).
In response to applicant’s argument that Dupre (US 2021/0203768) does not disclose recording audio and video data in response to a user activating a dedicated emergency button for a pre-determined time period, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Dupre discloses a user activating alert processing procedure by performing a “long press” of a specific portion of a touch screen ([0108]-[0110]) and in response recording audio and video data ([0157]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., not triggering false alarms and non-cumbersome operation) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanabusa et al. (US 2018/0338046), herein Hanabusa, in view of Hanchett, Jr. et al. (US 2018/0075562), herein Hanchett, in view of Dupre et al. (US 2021/0203768), herein Dupre.
Consider claim 1, Hanabusa clearly teaches a personal safety system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a personal electronic device carried by an individual having one or more sensors for recording visual and/or audio data associated with the individual, the personal electronic device having a dedicated button that is activated by the individual to commence recording visual and/or audio data; (Portable wireless communications device 20 includes cameras 23 and microphone 24 to record audio and video in response to user input via user interface 230, which includes buttons, [0018], [0101], [0107].)
at least one external service nominated by the individual to be in electronic communication with the personal electronic device to receive and store the recorded visual and/or audio data from the personal electronic device in real time for monitoring purposes; (The video file is transmitted to predesignated phone numbers or email addresses, [0031], [0035], [0037].) and
wherein, the visual and/or audio data is continuously recorded in discrete predetermined intervals by the personal electronic device and at the completion of each discrete predetermined interval the visual and/or audio data for that discrete predetermined interval is transmitted to the external service together with data capturing the time and location of the individual. (The 10 seconds of video recorded prior to the alert are transmitted to the predesignated phone numbers or email addresses, [0030], [0031]. Then a 10 second post-alert video is recorded and transmitted, [0032], [0037]. The video file includes GPS information, [0018], [0026], [0037].)
Hanabusa further teaches recording a time when the visual and/or audio data is recorded ([0153]). However, Hanabusa does not explicitly teach the visual and/or audio data is transmitted to the external service together with data capturing the time, and following transmission of the visual and/or audio data, the data is deleted from the personal electronic device.
In an analogous art, Hanchett, which discloses a personal safety device, clearly teaches the visual and/or audio data is transmitted to the external service together with data capturing the time, ([0024], [0084], [0101], [0164]) and following transmission of the visual and/or audio data, the data is deleted from the personal electronic device. (After the event data is provided to the server the recording device deletes the event data from its internal memory, [0031].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hanabusa by the visual and/or audio data is transmitted to the external service together with data capturing the time, and following transmission of the visual and/or audio data, the data is deleted from the personal electronic device, as taught by Hanchett, for the benefit of reducing the amount of video data needed to be stored by the portable device.
However, Hanabusa combined with Hanchett does not explicitly teach an emergency button that is activated by the individual to commence recording visual and/or audio data upon the individual selecting the dedicated emergency button for a pre-determined time period.
In an analogous art, Dupre, which discloses a personal safety device, clearly teaches an emergency button that is activated by the individual to commence recording visual and/or audio data upon the individual selecting the dedicated emergency button for a pre-determined time period. (If a long press of a button is detected an alert is processed, [0108]-[0110], [0157].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hanabusa combined with Hanchett by an emergency button that is activated by the individual to commence recording visual and/or audio data upon the individual selecting the dedicated emergency button for a pre-determined time period, as taught by Dupre, for the benefit of enabling the individual to manually initiate an alert.
Consider claim 2, Hanabusa combined with Hanchett and Dupre clearly teaches the at least one external service nominated by the individual is in electrical communication with the personal electronic device by way of an email address, such that the recorded visual and/or audio data is transmitted to the at least one external service from the personal electronic device by email. (The video file is transmitted to predesignated phone numbers or email addresses, [0031], [0035], [0037] Hanabusa.)
Consider claim 4, Hanabusa combined with Hanchett and Dupre clearly teaches upon selection of the dedicated emergency button on the personal electronic device, (If a long press of a button is detected an alert is processed, [0108]-[0110], [0157] Dupre .) the personal electronic device further records the geo-location, time and date data ([0024], [0084], [0101], [0164] Hanchett) of the recording for transmission to the one or more external services. (The video files, including GPS location information, are transmitted to the predesignated phone numbers or email addresses, [0030]-[0032], [0037] Hanabusa.)
Consider claim 6, Hanabusa combined with Hanchett and Dupre clearly teaches immediately after transmission of the visual and/or audio data to the remote service, a new discrete predetermined interval of visual and/or audio data is commenced. (The 10 seconds of video recorded prior to the alert are transmitted to the predesignated phone numbers or email addresses, [0030], [0031]. Then a 10 second post-alert video is recorded and transmitted, [0032], [0037]. Hanabusa)
Consider claim 7, Hanabusa combined with Hanchett and Dupre clearly teaches the personal electronic device is configured to communicate with one or more body worn sensors to receive the visual and or audio data associated with the individual. (Portable wireless communications device 20 is carried by hand, in a pocket or in a bag by the individual, [0017] Hanabusa.)
Consider claim 8, Hanabusa combined with Hanchett and Dupre clearly teaches the one or more body worn sensors are mounted on clothing worn by the individual or items carried by the individual. (Portable wireless communications device 20 is carried by hand, in a pocket or in a bag by the individual, [0017] Hanabusa.)
Consider claim 13, Hanabusa combined with Hanchett and Dupre clearly teaches the predetermined period of time for selecting the dedicated emergency button is 3-5 seconds. (A long press is at least 3 seconds, [0108] Dupre.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanabusa et al. (US 2018/0338046) in view of Hanchett, Jr. et al. (US 2018/0075562) in view of Dupre et al. (US 2021/0203768) in view of Rashidi (US 2015/0024705).
Consider claim 5, Hanabusa combined with Hanchett and Dupre clearly teaches the discrete time intervals in which the visual and/or audio data is recorded and transmitted to the external service. (The 10 seconds of video recorded prior to the alert are transmitted to the predesignated phone numbers or email addresses, [0030], [0031]. Then a 10 second post-alert video is recorded and transmitted, [0032], [0037]. Hanabusa)
However, Hanabusa combined with Hanchett and Dupre does not explicitly teach the discrete time intervals are determined by the individual.
In an analogous art, Rashidi, which discloses a personal safety device, clearly teaches the discrete time intervals are determined by the individual. (Fig. 19: First and second durations 604, 606 are user selectable, [0110]-[0112].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Hanabusa combined with Hanchett and Dupre by the discrete time intervals are determined by the individual, as taught by Rashidi, for the benefit of providing a more user-customizable system.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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.
/JOHN R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425