DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 06/22/2026, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed on 06/22/2026, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 are the current claims hereby under examination.
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 Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 16-17, “connected to the medical treatment equipment and is connected to the medical treatment equipment” should read “connected to the medical treatment equipment” to remove the repeated phrase
In claim 7, line 19, “the treatment equipment” should read “the medical treatment equipment” to use consistent terminology throughout the claim
Appropriate correction is required.
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 Raghunathan (CN 110603073) in view of Ansay (EP 1555505) and Burton (US 20210169417). Citations to CN 110603073 and EP 1555505 will refer to the English Machine Translations that accompany this Office Action.
Regarding independent claim 1, Raghunathan teaches a system comprising:
a subject being examined under treatment by using medical treatment equipment for treating a patient ([0035]: “Figure 10 shows an example of an open-loop RLS electrical stimulation therapy system”. The electrical stimulation therapy system is the medical treatment equipment, and the electrical stimulation therapy is the treatment of the patient.), and detecting the sleep state of the subject ([0080]: “This technology can be applied in an open-loop manner, allowing patient control or titration, or it can include closed-loop operation, for example, based on one or more sensed or received physiological parameters such as sleep state”).
However, Raghunathan does not teach using sensors on the eyelids to sense the sleep state.
Ansay discloses a distance measuring device. Specifically, Ansay teaches a first sensor unit configured to be mountable on any one of upper eyelids or lower eyelids of a subject; 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 ([0045]: “Eyelid opening measurement: The miniaturization of components allows one of the distance sensor elements to be placed on the eyelid, the other being placed under or above the eye. During a progressive loss of alertness, more frequent blinking is observed, as well as a progressive decrease in the average opening of the eyelid. The detection of these events also constitutes a special case of analysis”; [0026]: “Another placement option is to place one sensor on the eyelids and another near the eye. The aim is to measure eyelid movements (a technique also used for drowsiness detection)”). Raghunathan and Ansay are analogous art as they are both related to the same field of endeavor of determining sleep states of a subject.
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 method of determining sleep state using eyelid sensors from Ansay into the system from Raghunathan as it is a known method of determining sleep state, and therefore would be a simple substitution to provide predictable results.
However, the Raghunathan/Ansay combination does not teach 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; and a control unit configured to determine a drowsy state of the subject being examined.
Burton discloses mobile wearable monitoring systems. Specifically, Burton 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 ([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 ([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 Ansay is used for the displacement of eye-lid span and determining whether the eyelids are closed from Burton.). Raghunathan, Ansay, and Burton are analogous art as they are all related to the same field of endeavor of determining sleep states of a subject.
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 drowsiness preventing signal from Burton into the Raghunathan/Ansay combination as it allows the user to be alerted to prevent drowsiness and wake them up, which allows for the treatment to continue and the user to stay alert.
However, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination is silent on what constitutes as a drowsy state.
Burton teaches 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 ([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”; [1142]: “Means of determining maximal time shift between a plurality of monitoring or data acquisition devices and warning system users should such conditions or predetermined thresholds or ranges of time-synchronisation requirements be exceeded or approached”; [1865]: “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”).
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 specific limitations used to determine the drowsy state from Burton into the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination as the combination is silent on these specific limitations, and Burton discloses suitable limitations in an analogous device.
The Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination teaches the control unit is operatively connected to the medical treatment equipment and is connected to the medical treatment equipment (Raghunathan, [0080]: “This technology can be applied in an open-loop manner, allowing patient control or titration, or it can include closed-loop operation, for example, based on one or more sensed or received physiological parameters such as sleep state”; [0136]: “Sleep status information can also be obtained through interfaces with other sleep monitoring products that patients can use, for example, the information can be transmitted to controller circuit 1002”. Since the treatment is applied based on a sensed sleep state, the control unit has to be connected to the medical treatment equipment. )and is further configured to stop an operation of the medical treatment equipment when it is determined that the subject being examined is in the drowsy state (Raghunathan, [0141]: “if sleep is detected after initiating electrical stimulation therapy, the process can continue to 1210, for example, to stop electrical stimulation or to gradually reduce the electrical stimulation energy and then stop electrical stimulation”; [0163]: “If sleep is detected to have begun, treatment can be stopped or paused, for example, until a wake-up is detected”),
the medical treatment equipment is a device separate from the drowsiness warning system (Raghunathan, [0136]: “Sleep status information can also be obtained through interfaces with other sleep monitoring products that patients can use, for example, the information can be transmitted to controller circuit 1002”) and configured to perform a medical procedure on a body of the subject being examined (Raghunathan, [0004]: “This document relates in a general but not limited manner to medical diagnostic and therapeutic devices and methods, and more specifically, not limited to, treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS) or hyperactive neurological disorders”), and
the control unit calculates the distance based on a position of the first sensor unit mounted on the one of the upper eyelids or the lower eyelids and a position of the second sensor unit mounted on the other one of the upper eyelids or the lower eyelids, throughout a process of treating the subject being examined by using the medical treatment equipment (Ansay, [0045]: “Eyelid opening measurement: The miniaturization of components allows one of the distance sensor elements to be placed on the eyelid, the other being placed under or above the eye. During a progressive loss of alertness, more frequent blinking is observed, as well as a progressive decrease in the average opening of the eyelid. The detection of these events also constitutes a special case of analysis”; [0026]: “Another placement option is to place one sensor on the eyelids and another near the eye. The aim is to measure eyelid movements (a technique also used for drowsiness detection)”).
Regarding claim 4, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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, Raghunathan teaches a method for a system, the method comprising:
a subject being examined under treatment by using medical treatment equipment for treating a patient ([0035]: “Figure 10 shows an example of an open-loop RLS electrical stimulation therapy system”. The electrical stimulation therapy system is the medical treatment equipment, and the electrical stimulation therapy is the treatment of the patient.), and detecting the sleep state of the subject ([0080]: “This technology can be applied in an open-loop manner, allowing patient control or titration, or it can include closed-loop operation, for example, based on one or more sensed or received physiological parameters such as sleep state”).
However, Raghunathan does not teach using sensors on the eyelids to sense the sleep state.
Ansay discloses a distance measuring device. Specifically, Ansay teaches disposing a first sensor unit and a second sensor unit on eyelids of a subject being examined by using medical treatment equipment for treating a patient; measuring a distance between the first sensor unit and the second sensor unit by calculating the distance based on a position of the first sensor unit mounted on one of upper eyelids or lower eyelids and a position of the second sensor unit mounted on the other one of the upper eyelids or lower eyelids ([0045]: “Eyelid opening measurement: The miniaturization of components allows one of the distance sensor elements to be placed on the eyelid, the other being placed under or above the eye. During a progressive loss of alertness, more frequent blinking is observed, as well as a progressive decrease in the average opening of the eyelid. The detection of these events also constitutes a special case of analysis”; [0026]: “Another placement option is to place one sensor on the eyelids and another near the eye. The aim is to measure eyelid movements (a technique also used for drowsiness detection)”). Raghunathan and Ansay are analogous art as they are both related to the same field of endeavor of determining sleep states of a subject.
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 method of determining sleep state using eyelid sensors from Ansay into the system from Raghunathan as it is a known method of determining sleep state, and therefore would be a simple substitution to provide predictable results
However, the Raghunathan/Ansay combination does not teach how the drowsy state is determined.
Burton discloses mobile wearable monitoring systems. Specifically, Burton teaches comparing the measured distance with a predetermined distance, 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 ([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”; [1142]: “Means of determining maximal time shift between a plurality of monitoring or data acquisition devices and warning system users should such conditions or predetermined thresholds or ranges of time-synchronisation requirements be exceeded or approached”; [1865]: “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”). Raghunathan, Ansay, and Burton are analogous art as they are all related to the same field of endeavor of determining sleep states of a subject.
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 specific limitations used to determine the drowsy state from Burton into the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination as the combination is silent on these specific limitations, and Burton discloses suitable limitations in an analogous device.
However, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination does not teach 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 teaches 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 ([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”).
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 drowsiness preventing signal from Burton into the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination as it allows the user to be alerted to prevent drowsiness and wake them up, which allows for the treatment to continue and the user to stay alert.
The Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination teaches when it is determined that the subject being examined is in the drowsy state, stopping, by a control unit, an operation of the treatment equipment (Raghunathan, [0080]: “This technology can be applied in an open-loop manner, allowing patient control or titration, or it can include closed-loop operation, for example, based on one or more sensed or received physiological parameters such as sleep state”; [0136]: “Sleep status information can also be obtained through interfaces with other sleep monitoring products that patients can use, for example, the information can be transmitted to controller circuit 1002”. Since the treatment is applied based on a sensed sleep state, the control unit has to be connected to the medical treatment equipment.), wherein
the medical treatment equipment is a device separate from the drowsiness warning system (Raghunathan, [0136]: “Sleep status information can also be obtained through interfaces with other sleep monitoring products that patients can use, for example, the information can be transmitted to controller circuit 1002”) and configured to perform a medical procedure on a body of the subject being examined (Raghunathan, [0004]: “This document relates in a general but not limited manner to medical diagnostic and therapeutic devices and methods, and more specifically, not limited to, treatment of restless legs syndrome (RLS) or hyperactive neurological disorders”).
Regarding claim 10, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination teaches the drowsiness warning system of claim 1.
However, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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”). Raghunathan, Ansay, Burton, 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination teaches the drowsiness warning method of claim 7.
However, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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”). Raghunathan, Ansay, Burton, 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination teaches the drowsiness warning system of claim 4.
However, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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”). Raghunathan, Ansay, Burton, 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton/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”). Raghunathan, Ansay, Burton, 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton/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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination teaches the drowsiness warning method of claim 10.
However, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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”). Raghunathan, Ansay, Burton, 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton/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”). Raghunathan, Ansay, Burton, 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton/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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton/Proud /Suematsu combination as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tunnell (US 20200146550).
Regarding claim 6, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton/Proud/Suematsu combination teaches the drowsiness warning system of claim 5.
However, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton/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”). Raghunathan, Ansay, Burton, 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton/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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Tunnell.
Regarding claim 12, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton combination teaches the drowsiness warning method of claim 10.
However, the Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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 Raghunathan/Ansay/Burton 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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-7, and 9-12 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights