DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21 – 40 are pending.
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 Amendment
With regard to the Non-Final Office Action from 27 January 2026, the Applicant has filed a response on 06 July 2026.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant indicates that, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the prior art does not disclose or suggest ‘a speaker communicating a verbal query at a predetermined time, at a random time, when presence (or motion) of the user is detected by a presence sensor, or upon detecting threshold inactivity of a device of the user by an activity detection module’ (Remarks: Page 9 Par 5). The independent claims have been amended to attempt to overcome the 103 rejection. Particularly, the independent claims have been amended to indicate that the speaker provides a verbal query at a predetermined time, at a random time, when presence (or motion) of the user is detected. The Applicant further indicates (Remarks: Page 11 Par 5) that the prior art does not teach using both audio data and safety profile data to decide whether an occurrence is an event of concern or an emergency event. This limitation was previously not considered and would be addressed in the following section.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims. The claims will be addressed by their current presentation in the following section.
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 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fronterhouse et al. (US 2013/0150686 A1: hereafter — Fronterhouse) in view of Koverzin (US 2010/0286490 A1) further in view of Bharti et al. (US 2016/0379473 A1: hereafter — Bharti), further in view of Lopez-Guede, Jose Manuel, et al. (“Lynx: automatic elderly behavior prediction in home telecare.” BioMed research international 2015.1 (2015): 201939: hereafter — Lopez-Guede) and further in view of Dawson (US 2016/0323718 A1).
For claim 21, Fronterhouse discloses a system comprising:
a speaker for communicating a verbal status query to a user (Fronterhouse: [0131] — a speaker that can present generated audible information; [0242] — querying the resident through speakers such as ‘Do you want me to call for help?’),
a microphone to gather from an environment of the microphone at least one of a voice communication of a user or an ambient sound from the environment (Fronterhouse: [0137] — a microphone to receive user speech as well as environmental noise);
at least one processor (Fronterhouse: FIG 2 Part 110 — User’s Main Processor);
a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor (Fronterhouse: FIG 2 Part 150 — User Local DataBase; [0135] — external data storage);
the at least one processor configured to:
determine occurrence of an event of concern and to determine to initiate an emergency event confirmation process, [[based on the first audio data and a safety profile of the user, wherein the safety profile comprises data specifying a condition under which the event of concern defines an emergency event, wherein the safety profile is configured to be updated through at least one machine learning algorithm]] (Fronterhouse: [0242] — ‘[w]hen that software module in the User’s Main Processor 110 receives information that the Fall Detector and Help Button Device 800 has a fall indication (not indicated here but the fall can be the first audio data), it initiates activities to corroborate the fall’ (teaching that when an event of concern has been detected, an initiation is made to confirm the event of concern), to which generation of speech may then be initiated), the emergency event confirmation process comprising:
generating the verbal status query for the user output by the speaker, responsive to determining the occurrence of the event of concern and to determining to initiate the emergency event confirmation process (Fronterhouse: [0242] — after the detection of a fall (an event of concern), “the User’s Main Processor 110 will initiate generation of speech, through all Room Box-mounted speakers 163 in the house, asking the resident, “Do you want me to call for help?” The verbal query is generated from all Room Box speakers to alert any other people in the home that an emergent event has occurred so that they can respond to the fall victim” (the verbal status query is generated in response to a fall detection, the fall detection being an event of concern, and the verbal status query is a further way to confirm the occurrence of the event of concern));
receiving second audio data subsequent to the verbal status query being output (Fronterhouse: [0242] — ‘[i]f there is no answer, or if the person’s voice is recognized as saying “Yes” or “Help,” …’ (indicating the receipt of second audio data));
determining that the event of concern is an emergency event and determining to continue the emergency event confirmation process, based on the second audio data [[and the safety profile of the user]], the determining that the event of concern is an emergency event including analysis of the second audio data to identify at least a response [[or a non-response event, wherein the non-response event is defined as a failure to receive by the microphone a recognizable response from the user]] (Fronterhouse: [0242], [0243] — after the user has responded ‘yes’ or ‘help,’ a message is sent indicating that the user has fallen (indicating the determination of an emergency event due to the user’s audio data response which indicated it as such)); and
execute an emergency action in response to the determination of the emergency event [[and subsequent confirmation of the emergency event]], wherein execution of the emergency action includes two-way communication between a user device and an emergency service or a caregiver device (Fronterhouse: [0243] — after the determination that the user needs help, a video call is initiated from an operator to the residence (indicating a two-way communication)).
The reference of Fronterhouse provides teaching for communicating a verbal status query to a user in a caregiver environment, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention fails to teach that the verbal communication is provided at a predetermined random time after determining a sensing event involving the user or upon detecting a threshold inactivity of a device, while offering a network interface controller coupled to an emergency assistance service.
This is however not new to the art as the reference of Koverzin is now introduced to teach this as
wherein the verbal status query is communicated at a predetermined time, at a random time, upon receiving a sensing event in which a presence of the user is sensed by a presence sensor, or upon detecting a threshold inactivity of a device of the user by an activity detection module (Koverzin: [0080] — ‘A routine check engine 132 can periodically prompt the conversation engine 120 to check in with the client or probe the client for current status information. The routine check engine 132 can be prompted to check the client on a schedule, at predetermined time periods, if the client has not spoken for a predetermined time or randomly’ (teaching of a presentation of a routine check at a predetermined time, random time, when the client hasn’t spoken in a predetermined time, meaning that inactivity has been detected at a device for certain period, this being performed at a physiological warning detection engine, as an activity detection module); [0008] — providing a synthesised speech to elicit a response form the user (teaching of a verbal status query communicated to the user);
a network interface controller providing communicative coupling to at least one instance of a voice controlled assistance service or at least one instance of an automated emergency assistance service (Koverzin: [0009] — performing speech recognition on received digitised sound to be able to determine if a subject has responded to a computer-generated verbal query; [0052] — a communication network able to be in communication with an emergency services centre; [0053] — a network management system monitoring the client’s equipment and the monitoring units; [0028] — offering emergency assistance services over a network);
the at least one processor configured to:
receive first audio data associated with the environment captured by the microphone (Koverzin: [0019] — receiving a trigger event as an environmental sound in the vicinity of the subject (which would be received by a microphone); [0056], [1035] — the system includes a microphone (able to pick up sound)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious improve upon the teaching of Fronterhouse which communicates a verbal status query to a user in a caregiver environment, by applying the known technique of Koverzin which provides a routine check verbal communication to a user after having not detected activity from the user this being capable of being performed over a network, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of improving patient safety and enabling patient activity by enabling communication from a remote location with the patient. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin provides teaching for executing an emergency action upon determining that an emergency event has occurred. This combination however fails to teach of determining the occurrence of an event of concern based on capturing audio data of an environment using a microphone and making use of a safety profile of the user.
The reference of Bharti is now introduced to teach this as:
determine occurrence of an event of concern and to determine to initiate an emergency event confirmation process, based on the first audio data and a safety profile of the user, wherein the safety profile comprises data specifying a condition under which the event of concern defines an emergency event, [[wherein the safety profile is configured to be updated through at least one machine learning algorithm]] (Bharti: [0030] — a microphone able to record audio wherein a sample of the recent audio data recorder is included as an emergency alert; [0024] — an indication of an emergency situation based on a user yelling ‘help’ or based on a code word for a panic situation identified in the user profile (teaching of determining an emergency event based on the utterance of a word, the first audio, and this word having been configured in the user’s safety profile)); and
determining that the event of concern is an emergency event and determining to continue the emergency event confirmation process, based on the second audio data, and the safety profile of the user, [[the determining that the event of concern is an emergency event including analysis of the second audio data to identify at least a response or a non-response event, wherein the non-response event is defined as a failure to receive by the microphone a recognizable response from the user]] (Bharti: [0030] — a microphone able to record audio wherein a sample of the recent audio data recorder is included as an emergency alert; [0024] — an indication of an emergency situation based on a user yelling ‘help’ or based on a code word for a panic situation identified in the user profile (teaching of determining an emergency event based on the utterance of a word, the second audio, and this word having been configured in the user’s safety profile)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the known teaching of the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin which executes an emergency action upon determining that an emergency event has occurred, by incorporating the known technique of Bharti which determines an emergency situation based on received audio and a user’s safety profile, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of interpreting environmental sounds in context of the particular user, leading to better situational awareness and evidently, a faster and more accurate emergency detection. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin further in view of Bharti provides teaching for the presence of a safety profile of a user being applied to determine the occurrence of an event of concern that defines an emergency event, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention now further provides teaching for the safety profile being updated through a machine learning algorithm.
This is however not new to the art as the reference of Lopez-Guede is now introduced to teach this as:
determine occurrence of an event of concern and to determine to initiate an emergency event confirmation process, based on the first audio data and a safety profile of the user, wherein the safety profile comprises data specifying a condition under which the event of concern defines an emergency event, wherein the safety profile is configured to be updated through at least one machine learning algorithm (Lopez-Guede: Page 12 Col 1 Par 2 — provides teaching for an inference engine activity tracker that tracks the daily activities of an elderly person through automatic or manual inputs; Page 2 Col 1 Par 2 — a system that creates ‘intelligent monitoring services of an elder and his medical issues, so that the system adapts to him, creating automatically rules that determine the usual values for each individual and evolve with the subject under monitoring, so that they are always up to date’; Page 2 Col 2 Par 4 — through the monitoring of the elderly’s usual behaviours, if a match is not found, the system can generate alert events and provide concrete recommendations for action).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the known teaching of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin further in view of Bharti which provides teaching for the presence of a safety profile of a user being applied to determine the occurrence of an event of concern that defines an emergency event, by applying the known teaching of Lopez-Guede which provides a safety profile being updated through a machine learning algorithm, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of offering personalised, proactive, and predictive safety management to improve quality of care. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
The combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin further in view of Bharti and further in view of Lopez-Guede provides teaching for determining that an event of concern has occurred, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the continuation of a confirmation process and the initiating a confirmation request that gets communicated to confirm the emergency event.
The reference of Dawson is now introduced to teach this as:
determining that the event of concern is an emergency event and determining to continue the emergency event confirmation process, based on the second audio data, [[and the safety profile of the user, the determining that the event of concern is an emergency event including analysis of the second audio data to identify at least a response or a non-response event, wherein the non-response event is defined as a failure to receive by the microphone a recognizable response from the user]] (Dawson: [0090] — loading a next question based on the answer given by the end-suer, such that the user can give a second response to a question presented by the system, such as, a user’s response (taken as the claimed second ) to ‘ARE YOU INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT?’ leads the system to confirm an emergency event and continue on in the emergency confirmation process to then present the question ‘HAVE YOU ALREADY CALLED 911?’ (this response is not in audio form, but receiving speech input is taught by earlier references));
initiating a confirmation request to confirm the emergency event, responsive to the determination of the emergency event and determining to continue the emergency event confirmation process, wherein initiation of the confirmation request includes at least one query for additional information to define the emergency event or to capture third audio data, and the at least one processor is configured to communicate the at least one query as at least part of the confirmation request (Dawson: [0090] — an initiation of the further confirmation request as ‘HAVE YOU ALREADY CALLED 911?’ which is communicated to the user as a query (and also is a further confirmation of the emergency event that desires the system to know if it is a type of emergency event where 911 should be contacted)); and
execute an emergency action in response to the determination of the emergency event and subsequent confirmation of the emergency event, wherein execution of the emergency action includes two-way communication between a user device and an emergency service or a caregiver device (Dawson: [0133] — directly contacting the appropriate emergency services after a prompting of such (indicating the conformation of an emergency event leading to contacting the necessary emergency contact)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin further in view of Bharti and further in view of Lopez-Guede which provides determining that an event of concern has occurred, by applying the known teaching of Dawson which provides continuing a confirmation process and initiating a confirmation request that gets communicated in order to receive confirmation of the emergency event, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of that receiving confirmation of the occurrence of an emergency event provides the system with full confidence of the emergency occurrence, so that the system would perform an appropriate emergency action only upon the determination of an emergency and not in the likely event of such. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 22, claim 21 is incorporated and the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson discloses the system, wherein the at least one processor is configured to communicate a notification to the caregiver device in response to identification of an emergency event (Fronterhouse: [0060] — ‘connecting users with Central Support Center (CSC) personnel for the purpose of handling a situation; [0243] — a CSC operator (as a caregiver) can initiate a video call to the residence (based upon an identification of an emergency event); [0054] — video conference with a caregiver).
For claim 23, claim 21 is incorporated and the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson discloses the system, wherein the two-way communication is executed subsequent to communication of a notification to the caregiver device or a device of the emergency service (Fronterhouse: [0060] — ‘connecting users with Central Support Center (CSC) personnel for the purpose of handling a situation; [0243] — a CSC operator (as a caregiver) can initiate a video call to the residence (based upon an identification of an emergency event, a video call also being a two-way communication); [0054] — video conference with a caregiver).
For claim 24, claim 21 is incorporated and the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson discloses the system, wherein the caregiver device or a device of the emergency service is configured to initiate the two-way communication (Fronterhouse: [0060] — ‘connecting users with Central Support Center (CSC) personnel for the purpose of handling a situation; [0243] — a CSC operator (as a caregiver) can initiate a video call to the residence (a video call is a two-way communication); [0054] — video conference with a caregiver).
For claim 26, claim 21 is incorporated and the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson discloses the system, wherein the at least one processor is configured to select the emergency action based, at least in part, on analyzing the second audio data (Fronterhouse: [0242], [0243] — after the user has responded ‘yes’ or ‘help,’ a message is sent indicating that the user has fallen (based on the analysis of that received user speech indicating that the user wants help for the emergency event)).
For claim 27, claim 21 is incorporated and the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson discloses the system, wherein at least one processor is configured to receive the first audio data subsequent to an initiating event (Fronterhouse: [0242] — a user’s main processor might initiate generation of speech (as an initiating event), after which a user may provide a response (as the first audio data)).
For claim 28, claim 27 is incorporated and the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson discloses the system, wherein the at least one processor is configured to identify at least one of a button press, sound, vibration, or presence signal as the initiating event (Fronterhouse: [0146] — a ‘Help’ button which the user can press; [0138] — human presence and motion sensor).
For claim 30, claim 21 is incorporated and the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson discloses the system, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine that the event of concern is an emergency event based, at least in part, on a second non-response event (Fronterhouse: [0242] — detecting that there is no answer (as a non-response event)).
For claim 31, claim 21 is incorporated and the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson discloses the system, wherein the verbal status query for the user output by the speaker includes at least one query for additional information to facilitate identification of the emergency event (Fronterhouse: [0242] — the user can be queried with ‘Do you want me to call for help?’ as a way to further facilitate identification of the emergency event).
As for claim 32, method claim 32 and system claim 21 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 32 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 21.
As for claim 33, method claim 33 and system claim 22 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 33 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 22.
As for claim 34, method claim 34 and system claim 23 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 34 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 23.
As for claim 35, method claim 35 and system claim 24 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 35 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 24.
As for claim 37, method claim 37 and system claim 26 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 37 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 26.
As for claim 38, method claim 38 and system claim 27 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 38 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 27.
As for claim 39, method claim 39 and system claim 30 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 39 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 30.
As for claim 40, method claim 40 and system claim 31 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 40 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 31.
Claims 25 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fronterhouse (US 2013/0150686 A1) in view of Koverzin (US 2010/0286490 A1) further in view of Bharti (US 2016/0379473 A1), further in view of Lopez-Guede (“Lynx: automatic elderly behavior prediction in home telecare.” BioMed research international 2015.1 (2015): 201939), and further in view of Dawson (US 2016/0323718 A1), as applied to claim 21, and further in view of MIHAILIDIS et al. (US 2013/0100268 A1: hereafter — Mihailidis).
For claim 25, claim 21 is incorporated the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson provides teaching for a speaker which communicates verbal status query to a user. This combination differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for switching processing of the voice communications from a first to a second voice-controlled service.
The reference of Mihailidis is now introduced to instead teach this as:
the system, wherein the at least one processor is configured to automatically switch processing of a set of voice communications of the user from a first voice controlled service to a second voice controlled service comprising an emergency assistance service (Mihailidis: [0059] — in the case of an emergency event, original audio information may be relayed to a central server for processing, instead of a local processor, in order to address emergency response protocol).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson which provides a speaker verbally communicating status query to a user, by applying the known teaching of Mihailidis which switches the processing of the voice communications from a first to a second voice-controlled service, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of delivering the processing to a location where there would be emergency attendants present, able to quickly handle the emergency situations as they are detected. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 36, method claim 36 and system claim 25 are related as method detailing procedures for using the claimed system, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed system parts. Accordingly, claim 36 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to system claim 25.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fronterhouse (US 2013/0150686 A1) in view of Koverzin (US 2010/0286490 A1) further in view of Bharti (US 2016/0379473 A1), further in view of Lopez-Guede (“Lynx: automatic elderly behavior prediction in home telecare.” BioMed research international 2015.1 (2015): 201939), and further in view of Dawson (US 2016/0323718 A1), as applied to claim 27, and further in view of AHMED et al (US 2016/0057595 A1: hereafter — Ahmed).
For claim 29, claim 27 is incorporated and the combination of Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson provides teaching for the detection of an initiating event. It however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the initiating event being a proactive status request and that the processor can trigger the initiating event based on a user profile.
The reference of Ahmed is now introduced to teach this as
the system, wherein the initiating event is a proactive status request initiated by a server system independent of the environment, and the at least one processor is configured to automatically trigger the initiating event based on a user profile or wherein the initiating event comprises an operation by a care giver via a caregiver device (Ahmed: [0045], [0053] — storing user’s medical history as well as data from body monitoring sensors (indicating the presence of a user profile); [0055]-[0056] — when the controller receives wellness data of monitoring sensors (proactive status request) that indicates that the wellness data may be approaching dangerous levels for the user, it serves as an indication that the user may be subject to a health issue (automatic triggering of an initiating event)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to improve upon the teaching of the combination Fronterhouse in view of Koverzin, further in view of Bharti, further in view of Lopez-Guede, and further in view of Dawson which provides the detection of an initiating event, by applying the known teaching of Ahmed which provides teaching for the initiating event being a proactive status request and that the processor can trigger the initiating event based on a user profile, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of automatically monitoring the surroundings and health conditions of a user to detect adverse situations, instead of the user manually indicating the occurrence of an adverse situation. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Will et al. (US 2016/0328952 A1) provides teaching for an audible detection of ‘Help!’ via a microphone, leading to an initiation of a transmission to an emergency response system [0090].
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 OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time).
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, PARAS D. SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
09/26/2026
