DETAILED ACTION
This action is pursuant to claims filed on 02/19/2026. Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are pending. An action on the merits of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 is as follows.
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 .
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.
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, 4, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton (US 20210169417) in view of Herceg (EP 3791775) and Harvard (“Blue light has a dark side”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Burton teaches a drowsiness warning system ([1052]: “the present invention enables any combination of monitored or information related sleep homeostatic sleep/wake and/or circadian and/or fitness or activity measures, drowsiness /fatigue and/or vigilance/attention measures”) comprising:
a sensor unit used to measure eyelid position of a subject being examined under treatment by using medical treatment equipment for treating a patient ([1869]: “the present invention incorporates threshold level(s) as a marker of excessive drowsiness, whereby said threshold marker is indicative of an individual subject (i.e. via calibrated and personalised data means) or determined from any of or any combination of normative data. In this way the VISE measure can be configured to generate an alert or notification to the subject or other party when a predefined or dynamically determined threshold level is exceeded, or when the safe operational region transitions to a region of unacceptable drowsiness risk level.”; [0724]: “programming of CC treatment systems (i.e. such as bright light therapy …), whereby said glasses can include reflective oculography (i.e. per Figure 43) capable of both entrainment light-therapy and/or detection of eye-lid movements and/or opening as a marker of drowsiness in order to enable biofeedback entrainment capabilities in order to adjust for CC cycle offset factors and/or sleep propensity and/or sleep urge factors. For example, the present invention can incorporate a series of blue LEDS or other blue lighting arrangement, which can be controlled automatically via wireless interconnect to provide an individual's selected entrainment treatment regime designed to adjust for circadian phase advancement or delay based on the present inventions computation of the individual's current circadian clock”).
However, Burton does not teach a first sensor unit configured to be mountable on any one of upper eyelids or lower eyelids of a subject being examined under treatment by using medical treatment equipment for treating a patient and a second sensor unit configured to be mountable on the other one of the upper eyelids or the lower eyelids of the subject being examined.
Herceg discloses a method and eyewear device for detecting eyelid movement. Specifically, Herceg teaches a first sensor unit configured to be mountable on any one of upper eyelids or lower eyelids and a second sensor unit configured to be mountable on the other one of the upper eyelids or the lower eyelids of the subject being examined (Figure 1, electrode E5, electrode E6). Burton and Herceg are analogous arts as they are both related to devices used to measure eyelid movement of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sensors being mounted on the eyelids from Herceg into the system from Burton, as it allows the eyelid movements to be detected more accurately by having the sensors attached to the user instead of using imaging to sense the movements.
The Burton/Herceg combination teaches an output unit configured to generate a drowsiness preventing signal comprising at least one of a sound signal, an optical signal, or a vibration signal for preventing drowsiness of the subject being examined (Burton, [1869]: “the present invention incorporates threshold level(s) as a marker of excessive drowsiness, whereby said threshold marker is indicative of an individual subject (i.e. via calibrated and personalised data means) or determined from any of or any combination of normative data. In this way the VISE measure can be configured to generate an alert or notification to the subject or other party when a predefined or dynamically determined threshold level is exceeded, or when the safe operational region transitions to a region of unacceptable drowsiness risk level.”; [0476]: “subject/patient can be alerted or awoken (including headband attached vibration or sound alarm device”); and
a control unit configured to determine a drowsy state of the subject being examined, based on a distance between the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit (Burton, [1867]: “An example embodiment of video measures indicative of driver drowsiness can comprise of the characterisation of eye-lid movements (blinks) based on the diagnosis or prognosis of drowsiness levels (i.e. indicative of tonic suppression with drowsiness suppressing responsiveness or velocity of eye-lid blink rate) or drowsiness-risk based on Vision Index Blink-speed / span (VISE), whereby a ratio of the displacement of eye-lid span (i.e. linear measures or angular opening of eyes) versus the speed (velocity) of eyelid motions can be tracked”; [1878]: “accurately track values and changes in percentage of time the eye-lids are closed and/or eye-lid velocity and/or eye-lid acceleration at any point in time as a marker of drowsiness onset.”. The distance between the first and second sensor units from Herceg is used for the displacement of eye-lid span and determining whether the eyelids are closed from Burton.), wherein
when the distance is maintained for a predetermined time or more in a state of being shorter than a predetermined distance, the control unit is further configured to determine that the subject being examined is in the drowsy state, and control the output unit to transmit the drowsiness preventing signal to the subject being examined (Burton, [1869]: “the present invention incorporates threshold level(s) as a marker of excessive drowsiness, whereby said threshold marker is indicative of an individual subject (i.e. via calibrated and personalised data means) or determined from any of or any combination of normative data. In this way the VISE measure can be configured to generate an alert or notification to the subject or other party when a predefined or dynamically determined threshold level is exceeded, or when the safe operational region transitions to a region of unacceptable drowsiness risk level.”; [2008]: “The present invention can enable an objective and qualitative measure to objectively recognise characterise and measure drowsiness and/or sleep onset and/or vigilance and/or sleep urge (propensity) by way of examining progressive change over time of the degree or magnitude or linear distant separation between any points on the upper and lower eye-lid or associated aspects (moving parts or muscle activity or related skin distortion or changes) compared to a measure related to eye-lid opening or eye-lid closing”; Herceg, [0004]: “The means for determining heart rate data and eyelid movement data may be configured to determine eyelid movement data by determining a first increase (e.g. an increase having a level above a first threshold (larger than the second threshold referred to below) and/or a duration longer than a first duration (longer than the second duration referred to below) in the current and/or voltage measurements, wherein the first increase is caused by an increase in at least one of the first capacitance and second capacitance. A duration of the first increase may be used for determining a duration of a first eyelid movement.”), and
the control unit is operatively connected to the medical treatment equipment (Burton, [0724]: “programming of CC treatment systems (i.e. such as bright light therapy …), whereby said glasses can include reflective oculography (i.e. per Figure 43) capable of both entrainment light-therapy and/or detection of eye-lid movements and/or opening as a marker of drowsiness in order to enable biofeedback entrainment capabilities in order to adjust for CC cycle offset factors and/or sleep propensity and/or sleep urge factors. For example, the present invention can incorporate a series of blue LEDS or other blue lighting arrangement, which can be controlled automatically via wireless interconnect to provide an individual's selected entrainment treatment regime designed to adjust for circadian phase advancement or delay based on the present inventions computation of the individual's current circadian clock”; [0427]: “one said projected or predicted scenario could be based on the assumption that subject/patient continues their sleep patterns or behaviour/quality (i.e. time of sleep, sleep time, sleep fragmentation, sleep architecture, sleep arousals, sleep disturbance, respiratory disturbance, REM sleep amount and structure, deep sleep amount and structure) unabated”).
The Burton/Herceg combination teaches adjusting the treatment for the circadian cycle, the combination does not teach wherein it is further configured to stop an operation of the treatment equipment when it is determined that the subject being examined is in the drowsy state.
Harvard teaches blue light effects on a user. Specifically, Harvard teaches that blue light should not be applied to the user when a user is trying to sleep so as to not disturb their circadian rhythms (Pages 1-2). In an application of Burton, the blue light therapy does not interrupt the user’s regular sleep cycle ([0427]: “one said projected or predicted scenario could be based on the assumption that subject/patient continues their sleep patterns or behaviour/quality (i.e. time of sleep, sleep time, sleep fragmentation, sleep architecture, sleep arousals, sleep disturbance, respiratory disturbance, REM sleep amount and structure, deep sleep amount and structure) unabated”), therefore it would be obvious to have the device from the Burton/Herceg combination to stop applying the blue light treatment when the user is drowsy, as it would stop the blue light therapy from intervening in the user’s regular sleep schedule.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the step of stopping treatment when the user is drowsy from Harvard into the Burton/Herceg combination as Harvard teaches that blue light can disrupt a user’s circadian rhythm and the combination of Burton/Herceg teaches that the treatment is adjusted to the user’s circadian rhythm, therefore it would have been obvious to stop the treatment when the user is drowsy so as to not disrupt their circadian cycle.
Regarding claim 4, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination teaches the drowsiness warning system of claim 1, wherein a drowsiness warning signal comprises at least one of a first signal comprising the sound signal; a second signal comprising the optical signal; or a third signal comprising the vibration signal (Burton, [0476]: “subject/patient can be alerted or awoken (including headband attached vibration or sound alarm device”).
Regarding independent claim 7, Burton teaches a drowsiness warning method ([1052]: “the present invention enables any combination of monitored or information related sleep homeostatic sleep/wake and/or circadian and/or fitness or activity measures, drowsiness /fatigue and/or vigilance/attention measures”) comprising:
a sensor unit used to measure eyelid position of a subject being examined under treatment by using medical treatment equipment for treating a patient ([1869]: “the present invention incorporates threshold level(s) as a marker of excessive drowsiness, whereby said threshold marker is indicative of an individual subject (i.e. via calibrated and personalised data means) or determined from any of or any combination of normative data. In this way the VISE measure can be configured to generate an alert or notification to the subject or other party when a predefined or dynamically determined threshold level is exceeded, or when the safe operational region transitions to a region of unacceptable drowsiness risk level.”; [0724]: “programming of CC treatment systems (i.e. such as bright light therapy …), whereby said glasses can include reflective oculography (i.e. per Figure 43) capable of both entrainment light-therapy and/or detection of eye-lid movements and/or opening as a marker of drowsiness in order to enable biofeedback entrainment capabilities in order to adjust for CC cycle offset factors and/or sleep propensity and/or sleep urge factors. For example, the present invention can incorporate a series of blue LEDS or other blue lighting arrangement, which can be controlled automatically via wireless interconnect to provide an individual's selected entrainment treatment regime designed to adjust for circadian phase advancement or delay based on the present inventions computation of the individual's current circadian clock”; [0427]: “one said projected or predicted scenario could be based on the assumption that subject/patient continues their sleep patterns or behaviour/quality (i.e. time of sleep, sleep time, sleep fragmentation, sleep architecture, sleep arousals, sleep disturbance, respiratory disturbance, REM sleep amount and structure, deep sleep amount and structure) unabated”).
However, Burton does not teach a first sensor unit configured to be mountable on any one of upper eyelids or lower eyelids of a subject being examined under treatment by using medical treatment equipment for treating a patient and a second sensor unit configured to be mountable on the other one of the upper eyelids or the lower eyelids of the subject being examined.
Herceg discloses a method and eyewear device for detecting eyelid movement. Specifically, Herceg teaches disposing a first sensor unit and a second sensor unit on eyelids of a subject (Figure 1, electrode E5, electrode E6). Burton and Herceg are analogous arts as they are both related to devices used to measure eyelid movement of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the sensors being mounted on the eyelids from Herceg into the method from Burton, as it allows the eyelid movements to be detected more accurately by having the sensors attached to the user instead of using imaging to sense the movements.
The Burton/Herceg combination teaches measuring a distance between the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit, and comparing the measured distance with a predetermined distance (Burton, [1867]: “An example embodiment of video measures indicative of driver drowsiness can comprise of the characterisation of eye-lid movements (blinks) based on the diagnosis or prognosis of drowsiness levels (i.e. indicative of tonic suppression with drowsiness suppressing responsiveness or velocity of eye-lid blink rate) or drowsiness-risk based on Vision Index Blink-speed / span (VISE), whereby a ratio of the displacement of eye-lid span (i.e. linear measures or angular opening of eyes) versus the speed (velocity) of eyelid motions can be tracked”; [1878]: “accurately track values and changes in percentage of time the eye-lids are closed and/or eye-lid velocity and/or eye-lid acceleration at any point in time as a marker of drowsiness onset.”; [1869]: “the present invention incorporates threshold level(s) as a marker of excessive drowsiness, whereby said threshold marker is indicative of an individual subject (i.e. via calibrated and personalised data means) or determined from any of or any combination of normative data. In this way the VISE measure can be configured to generate an alert or notification to the subject or other party when a predefined or dynamically determined threshold level is exceeded, or when the safe operational region transitions to a region of unacceptable drowsiness risk level.”. The distance between the first and second sensor units from Herceg is used for the displacement of eye-lid span and determining whether the eyelids are closed from Burton.);
measuring a time for which the measured distance is maintained shorter than the predetermined distance, and comparing the measured time with a predetermined time; determining a drowsy state of the subject being examined based on the measured distance and the measured time (Burton, [1869]: “the present invention incorporates threshold level(s) as a marker of excessive drowsiness, whereby said threshold marker is indicative of an individual subject (i.e. via calibrated and personalised data means) or determined from any of or any combination of normative data. In this way the VISE measure can be configured to generate an alert or notification to the subject or other party when a predefined or dynamically determined threshold level is exceeded, or when the safe operational region transitions to a region of unacceptable drowsiness risk level.”; [2008]: “The present invention can enable an objective and qualitative measure to objectively recognise characterise and measure drowsiness and/or sleep onset and/or vigilance and/or sleep urge (propensity) by way of examining progressive change over time of the degree or magnitude or linear distant separation between any points on the upper and lower eye-lid or associated aspects (moving parts or muscle activity or related skin distortion or changes) compared to a measure related to eye-lid opening or eye-lid closing”; Herceg, [0004]: “The means for determining heart rate data and eyelid movement data may be configured to determine eyelid movement data by determining a first increase (e.g. an increase having a level above a first threshold (larger than the second threshold referred to below) and/or a duration longer than a first duration (longer than the second duration referred to below) in the current and/or voltage measurements, wherein the first increase is caused by an increase in at least one of the first capacitance and second capacitance. A duration of the first increase may be used for determining a duration of a first eyelid movement.”);
when it is determined that the subject being examined is in the drowsy state, transmitting a drowsiness preventing signal comprising at least one of a sound signal, an optical signal, or a vibration signal to the subject being examined (Burton, [1869]: “the present invention incorporates threshold level(s) as a marker of excessive drowsiness, whereby said threshold marker is indicative of an individual subject (i.e. via calibrated and personalised data means) or determined from any of or any combination of normative data. In this way the VISE measure can be configured to generate an alert or notification to the subject or other party when a predefined or dynamically determined threshold level is exceeded, or when the safe operational region transitions to a region of unacceptable drowsiness risk level.”; [0476]: “subject/patient can be alerted or awoken (including headband attached vibration or sound alarm device”).
The Burton/Herceg combination teaches adjusting the treatment for the circadian cycle, the combination does not teach wherein it is further configured to stop an operation of the treatment equipment when it is determined that the subject being examined is in the drowsy state.
Harvard teaches blue light effects on a user. Specifically, Harvard teaches that blue light should not be applied to the user when a user is trying to sleep so as to not disturb their circadian rhythms (Pages 1-2). In an application of Burton, the blue light therapy does not interrupt the user’s regular sleep cycle ([0427]: “one said projected or predicted scenario could be based on the assumption that subject/patient continues their sleep patterns or behaviour/quality (i.e. time of sleep, sleep time, sleep fragmentation, sleep architecture, sleep arousals, sleep disturbance, respiratory disturbance, REM sleep amount and structure, deep sleep amount and structure) unabated”) therefore it would be obvious to have the method from the Burton/Herceg combination to stop applying the blue light treatment when the user is drowsy, as it would stop the blue light therapy from intervening in the user’s regular sleep schedule.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the step of stopping treatment when the user is drowsy from Harvard into the Burton/Herceg combination as Harvard teaches that blue light can disrupt a user’s circadian rhythm and the combination of Burton/Herceg teaches that the treatment is adjusted to the user’s circadian rhythm, therefore it would have been obvious to stop the treatment when the user is drowsy so as to not disrupt their circadian cycle.
Regarding claim 10, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination teaches the drowsiness warning method of claim 7, wherein a drowsiness warning signal comprises at least one of a first signal comprising the sound signal; a second signal comprising the optical signal; or a third signal comprising the vibration signal (Burton, [0476]: “subject/patient can be alerted or awoken (including headband attached vibration or sound alarm device”).
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of Kannan (RU 2734339). Citations to RU 2734339 will refer to the English Machine Translation that accompanies this Office Action.
Regarding claim 3, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination teaches the drowsiness warning system of claim 1.
However, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination does not teach further comprising: a notification unit configured to notify an examiner of the drowsy state of the subject being examined, wherein, when it is determined that the subject being examined is in the drowsy state, the control unit is further configured to control the notification unit to generate a drowsiness warning signal for notifying the examiner.
Kannan discloses a system for detecting the onset of somnolence. Specifically, Kannan teaches a system further comprising: a notification unit configured to notify an examiner of the drowsy state of the subject being examined, wherein, when it is determined that the subject being examined is in the drowsy state, the control unit is further configured to control the notification unit to generate a drowsiness warning signal for notifying the examiner ([0029]: “a sleepiness alert may be a "message" that is displayed on a display screen … another type of alert involves sending a message to a third party (e.g., a caregiver, healthcare professional, physician, sleep researcher, etc.), which in turn alerts the person who is drowsy or otherwise takes action based on the person experiencing the onset of drowsiness”). Burton, Herceg, and Kannan are analogous arts as they are all related to monitoring the drowsiness of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the notification from Kannan into the system from the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination as it allows a person monitoring the users to know when the user is in a drowsy state, which can provide them more information for use in analyzing their health information.
Regarding claim 9, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination teaches the drowsiness warning method of claim 7.
However, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination does not teach further comprising: a notification unit configured to notify an examiner of the drowsy state of the subject being examined, wherein, when it is determined that the subject being examined is in the drowsy state, the control unit is further configured to control the notification unit to generate a drowsiness warning signal for notifying the examiner.
Kannan discloses a system for detecting the onset of somnolence. Specifically, Kannan teaches a system further comprising: when it is determined that the subject being examined is in the drowsy state, generating, by a notification unit, a drowsiness notification signal for notifying an examiner ([0029]: “a sleepiness alert may be a "message" that is displayed on a display screen … another type of alert involves sending a message to a third party (e.g., a caregiver, healthcare professional, physician, sleep researcher, etc.), which in turn alerts the person who is drowsy or otherwise takes action based on the person experiencing the onset of drowsiness”). Burton, Herceg, and Kannan are analogous arts as they are all related to monitoring the drowsiness of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the notification from Kannan into the system from the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination as it allows a person monitoring the users to know when the user is in a drowsy state, which can provide them more information for use in analyzing their health information.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination as applied to claims 4 and 10 above, and further in view of Proud (US 9993197) and Suematsu (US 20190069810).
Regarding claim 5, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination teaches the drowsiness warning system of claim 4.
However, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination only teaches the first and third signals from claim 4 (Burton, [0476]: “subject/patient can be alerted or awoken (including headband attached vibration or sound alarm device”), but does not teach the second signal, the optical signal.
Proud discloses a patient monitoring system that sends alerts to patients. Specifically, Proud teaches the second signal (Column 29, line 31: “The alarm 44 can be visual, by motion, audio, and the like”). Burton, Herceg, and Proud are analogous arts as they all monitor the sleep status of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the optical signal from Proud into the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination as it allows for an additional signal to alert the user that they are in a drowsy state, which can assist in informing the user and encouraging them to wake up.
However, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard/Proud combination is silent on when the signals are transmitted in relation to one another.
Suematsu discloses a body motion signal processing apparatus. Specifically, Suematsu teaches wherein the output unit is further configured to transmit multiple signals to the subject being examined in a stepwise manner ([0079]: “it is also possible to perform the output of the caution signal in a stepwise manner”). Burton, Herceg, Proud, and Suematsu are analogous arts as they all relate to systems that monitor a user and provide alerts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the stepwise manner of transmitting the alerts from Suematsu into the Burton/Herceg/Harvard/Proud combination as the combination is silent on the order of the signals, and Suematsu discloses a suitable order in an analogous device.
Regarding claim 11, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination teaches the drowsiness warning method of claim 10.
However, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination only teaches the first and third signals from claim 4 (Burton, [0476]: “subject/patient can be alerted or awoken (including headband attached vibration or sound alarm device”), but does not teach the second signal, the optical signal.
Proud discloses a patient monitoring system that sends alerts to patients. Specifically, Proud teaches the second signal (Column 29, line 31: “The alarm 44 can be visual, by motion, audio, and the like”). Burton, Herceg, and Proud are analogous arts as they all monitor the sleep status of a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the optical signal from Proud into the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination as it allows for an additional signal to alert the user that they are in a drowsy state, which can assist in informing the user and encouraging them to wake up.
However, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard/Proud combination is silent on when the signals are transmitted in relation to one another.
Suematsu discloses a body motion signal processing apparatus. Specifically, Suematsu teaches wherein the transmitting of the drowsiness preventing signal to the subject being examined comprises transmitting the first to third signals to the subject being examined in a stepwise manner ([0079]: “it is also possible to perform the output of the caution signal in a stepwise manner”). Burton, Herceg, Proud, and Suematsu are analogous arts as they all relate to systems that monitor a user and provide alerts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the stepwise manner of transmitting the alerts from Suematsu into the Burton/Herceg/Harvard/Proud combination as the combination is silent on the order of the signals, and Suematsu discloses a suitable order in an analogous device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Burton/Herceg/Harvard/Proud/Suematsu combination as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tunnell (US 20200146550).
Regarding claim 6, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard/Proud/Suematsu combination teaches the drowsiness warning system of claim 5.
However, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard/Proud/Suematsu combination does not teach wherein the output unit is further configured to simultaneously transmit at least one of the first signal to the third signal to the subject being examined.
Tunnell discloses a system for issuing a notification in response to an event affecting a monitored user. Specifically Tunnell teaches wherein the output unit is further configured to simultaneously transmit at least one of the first signal to the third signal to the subject being examined ([0178]: “a single entity may be simultaneously authenticated to execute a plurality of alerts”). Burton, Herceg, Proud, Suematsu, and Tunnell are analogous arts as they all relate to systems that monitor a user and provide alerts.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the simultaneous alerts from Tunnell into the Burton/Herceg/Harvard/Proud/Suematsu combination as it allows the system to provide an additional alert to the user, which can ensure that they are made aware that they are in a drowsy state and can take action to correct it.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tunnell.
Regarding claim 12, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination teaches the drowsiness warning method of claim 10.
However, the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination is silent on when the signals are transmitted in relation to one another.
Tunnell teaches wherein the transmitting of the drowsiness preventing signal to the subject being examined comprises simultaneously transmitting at least one of the first to third signals to the subject being examined ([0178]: “a single entity may be simultaneously authenticated to execute a plurality of alerts”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the simultaneous manner of transmitting the alerts from Tunnell into the Burton/Herceg/Harvard combination as the combination is silent on the order of the signals, and Tunnell discloses a suitable order in an analogous device.
Response to Arguments
All of applicant’s argument regarding the rejections and objections previously set forth have been fully considered and are persuasive unless directly addressed subsequently.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of the combination teaching stopping of the medical treatment equipment 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.
Applicant argues that the Burton/Herceg combination does not teach medical treatment equipment, yet this argument is not found persuasive. Applicant states the Herceg is silent on a connection to medical treatment, and therefore does not teach stopping the medical equipment, however Herceg teaches glasses that include light-therapy (a medical treatment device). Medical treatment equipment is a very broad term, which can include glasses that provide light therapy treatment.
Applicant also discusses many of the advantages of their claimed invention, however all the claimed limitations have been shown in the prior art, therefore these arguments are not persuasive. Additionally relate to features not claimed in the claims.
Applicant also claims that the Burton/Herceg combination does not teach distance based measurement between the eyelids, however as stated in Burton, the distance between the eyelids is measured and used for evaluation (Burton, [1867]: “the displacement of eye-lid span (i.e. linear measures or angular opening of eyes) versus the speed (velocity) of eyelid motions can be tracked”). The distance between the first and second sensor units from Herceg is used for the displacement of eye-lid span and determining whether the eyelids are closed from Burton.
Applicant also argues that there is no motivation to combine Burton and Herceg, however as stated, they are both known methods and devices used to determine drowsiness of a user, and using different types of sensors or switching one sensor type with another to measure the user's eyelids would have been obvious and known to do.
Applicant states that there is no motivation to combine the medical equipment from Herceg into the device from Burton because it is not related to real-time safety interlocks for hazardous medical procedures, however that is not what is claimed, as no hazardous medical procedures are claimed. All that is claimed is stopping of a medical treatment equipment, and Herceg teaches stopping medical treatment equipment when the subject is drowsy, and Burton teaches a system to detect drowsiness of a user. Therefore it would be obvious to incorporate the treatment equipment from Herceg into Burton since it is a direct application of the measurements determined in Burton and is useful for providing treatment to the user.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN K MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 5712727540. 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.
/E.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791