DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05/04/26 and 03/03/26 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments, filed 02/02/26, with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant, on page 10 of the mark, argues that Spector does not teach or suggest determining “determining, based on at least in part on type of event, instruction for responding to the event. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Spector discloses that according to type of emergency, emergency level, emergency code, user identity or medical information, the server selects responders. After selecting responders, the server transmits messages to request to confirm if they are available. Upon confirmation, the server sends a dispatch request to the responder. For that reason, the Examiner contends that the combination of the references shows all limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 7, 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector (U.S. 20110071880) in view of Clark (U.S. 20230345222) and further in view of Martin (U.S. 20230014760).
For claim 7, Spector discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
receiving first data indicative of an emergency alert being issued by a first device (at least Fig. 1, [0008], [0013] and [0026]-[0037]. A user 100 of the system, signals through use of his wireless communications device that an emergency has occurred by transmitting user data 105. As used herein, the term emergency implies that the user is requesting help and does not imply the severity of the emergency or whether the emergency is medical, police, or fire. The emergency request includes a user identifier and location information);
determining, based at least in part on the first data, a type of event associated with the emergency alert (at least [0027]-[0030]. The server 110 receives the request and parses a user identifier, such as a profile number or name, etc. and retrieves the user's profile from the user profile database 120. The user's profile includes the user's name and also any medical conditions that the user may have. These conditions may dictate that a specialist that can treat the medical condition should be considered by a decision engine 130 when dispatching one or more responders.);
determining, based at least in part on the type of event, instructions for responding to the event (at least [0027]-[0037]. The server contacts the selected responders so that they can confirm that they are available to be dispatched. The server waits an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 30 sec, 1 min., 2 min. etc.) for responses. The server receives acknowledgements from the responders 340A.);
determining, based at least in part on the first data and type of event, a second user for responding to the emergency alert (at least Fig. 1, [0008], [0013] and [0026]-[0037]. The server 110 receives the request and parses a user identifier, such as a profile number or name, etc. and retrieves the user's profile from the user profile database 120. The user's profile includes the user's name and also any medical conditions that the user may have. These conditions may dictate that a specialist that can treat the medical condition should be considered by a decision engine 130 when dispatching one or more responders. The decision engine 130 also accesses and searches the responder profile database 140 for appropriate responders.);
generating a communication channel associated with the emergency alert (at least [0037]. After one or more responders are identified that meet the criteria set for the decision engine, the server will communicate with the responders 330A. The server contacts the selected responders so that they can confirm that they are available to be dispatched. The server waits an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 30 sec, 1 min., 2 min. etc.) for responses. The server receives acknowledgements from the responders 340A.);
generating second data associated with a notification to the second user, the notification including a location of the first user (at least Fig. 1 and [0047]. When a responder is dispatched to the location of the emergency, the responder may be provided with an address of the emergency, latitude and longitude coordinates or directions. The directions can be determined by the server using known navigation techniques and based upon the location information as provided by the user in the emergency request transmission and found in the responders profile); and instructions associated with responding to the type of event (at least [0027]-[0037]. The server contacts the selected responders so that they can confirm that they are available to be dispatched. The server waits an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 30 sec, 1 min., 2 min. etc.) for responses. The server receives acknowledgements from the responders 340A.); and sending the second data to a second device associated with the second user (at least Fig. 1 and [0047]. The server contacts the selected responders so that they can confirm that they are available to be dispatched. When a responder is dispatched to the location of the emergency, the responder may be provided with an address of the emergency, latitude and longitude coordinates or directions. The directions can be determined by the server using known navigation techniques and based upon the location information as provided by the user in the emergency request transmission and found in the responders profile). However, Spector does not disclose a first device worn by a user; and the notification including the type of event.
In the same field of endeavor, Clark discloses a first device worn by a user (at least [0031]. The control button 50 is depressed when the user experiences an emergency. The transceiver 52 contacts the emergency responders, the camera 70 turns on, the speaker 56 turns on and the microphone 58 turns on. In this way the user can communicate with the emergency responders in order to immediately receive assistance.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Spector as taught by Clark for purpose of transmitting the physical location of the watch 12 to the emergency responders thereby facilitating the emergency responders to effectively respond to the user's emergency.
In the same field of endeavor, Martin discloses the notification including the type of event (at least [0026] and [0045]. The emergency responder using the emergency responder device can see location updates, medical data, or other emergency data helpful to the emergency responder to assist the caller and provide the needed emergency assistance.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Spector as taught by Clark for purpose of providing the needed emergency assistance.
For claim 9, the combination of Spector, Clark and Martin disclose the system of claim 7. Spector discloses determining, based at least in part on the first data, a third user for responding to the emergency alert; and sending the second data to a third device of the third user, wherein at least one of the second user or the third user is determined based at least in part on a user profile associated with the first user (at least [0026-[0037] and [0047]. An emergency may occur at a location and the first pulmonary specialist may be located 100 miles away from the emergency location. The server may not attempt to dispatch the specialist, but rather dispatch the closest responder. In other circumstances, the server may have a default provision that if the distance between the specialist and the emergency location is greater than 25 miles and less than 100 miles, the server will default to sending the closest responder in addition to requesting the specialist. After one or more responders are identified that meet the criteria set for the decision engine, the server will communicate with the responders 330A. The server contacts the selected responders so that they can confirm that they are available to be dispatched. The server waits an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 30 sec, 1 min., 2 min. etc.) for responses. The server receives acknowledgements from the responders 340A. If no responder responds to the server, the server will expand the search criteria set. If one or more responders acknowledges the request to be dispatched, the server will send a transmission to the one or more servers indicating that they have been dispatched to the emergency location 350A. The server then queries whether an appropriate type and number of responders have been dispatched 360A. For example, five responders may acknowledge a request to be dispatched and the server may choose to dispatch the closest among the five responders to the emergency location. When a responder is dispatched to the location of the emergency, the responder may be provided with an address of the emergency, latitude and longitude coordinates or directions. The directions can be determined by the server using known navigation techniques and based upon the location information as provided by the user in the emergency request transmission and found in the responders profile.)
For claim 10, the combination of Spector, Clark and Martin disclose the system of claim 7. Spector discloses receiving third data associated with a second location of the second user, and wherein determining the second user is based at least in part on the second location (at least [0026-[0037] and [0047]. An emergency may occur at a location and the first pulmonary specialist may be located 100 miles away from the emergency location. The server may not attempt to dispatch the specialist, but rather dispatch the closest responder. In other circumstances, the server may have a default provision that if the distance between the specialist and the emergency location is greater than 25 miles and less than 100 miles, the server will default to sending the closest responder in addition to requesting the specialist. After one or more responders are identified that meet the criteria set for the decision engine, the server will communicate with the responders 330A. The server contacts the selected responders so that they can confirm that they are available to be dispatched. The server waits an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 30 sec, 1 min., 2 min. etc.) for responses. The server receives acknowledgements from the responders 340A. If no responder responds to the server, the server will expand the search criteria set. If one or more responders acknowledges the request to be dispatched, the server will send a transmission to the one or more servers indicating that they have been dispatched to the emergency location 350A. The server then queries whether an appropriate type and number of responders have been dispatched 360A. For example, five responders may acknowledge a request to be dispatched and the server may choose to dispatch the closest among the five responders to the emergency location. When a responder is dispatched to the location of the emergency, the responder may be provided with an address of the emergency, latitude and longitude coordinates or directions. The directions can be determined by the server using known navigation techniques and based upon the location information as provided by the user in the emergency request transmission and found in the responders profile.)
For claim 12, the combination of Spector, Clark and Martin the system of claim 7. Spector discloses determining a second location of the second user; determining, based at least in part on the second location, a lack of a response by the second user responding to the emergency alert; determining, based at least in part on the lack of the response, a third user for responding to the emergency alert; and sending the second data to a third device associated with the second user (at least [0037] and [0047]. After one or more responders are identified that meet the criteria set for the decision engine, the server will communicate with the responders 330A. The server contacts the selected responders so that they can confirm that they are available to be dispatched. The server waits an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 30 sec, 1 min., 2 min. etc.) for responses. The server receives acknowledgements from the responders 340A. If no responder responds to the server, the server will expand the search criteria set. If one or more responders acknowledges the request to be dispatched, the server will send a transmission to the one or more servers indicating that they have been dispatched to the emergency location 350A. The server then queries whether an appropriate type and number of responders have been dispatched 360A. If the answer is no, the server will adjust the criteria set 370A so that the set of possible results is more expansive and will repeat the search process and contacting of the responders until the appropriate responders have confirmed that they agree to be dispatched to the emergency location. If the proper number and type of responders has been dispatched, the method ends. For example, five responders may acknowledge a request to be dispatched and the server may choose to dispatch the closest among the five responders to the emergency location. When a responder is dispatched to the location of the emergency, the responder may be provided with an address of the emergency, latitude and longitude coordinates or directions. The directions can be determined by the server using known navigation techniques and based upon the location information as provided by the user in the emergency request transmission and found in the responders profile.)
For claim 13, the combination of Spector, Clark and Martin disclose the system of claim 7. Spector discloses wherein the first data includes sensor data generated by one or more sensors of the first device (at least [0023] and [0052]. The wireless communication device could be a wireless transmitter that contains a global positioning satellite (GPS) receiver.)
For claim 14, the combination of Spector and Clark disclose the system of claim 7. Spector discloses wherein the type of the event is associated with at least one of: an arc-flash in proximity to the first user; a fall experienced by the first user; a shock experienced by the first user; or an impact experienced by the first user (at least [0029]. The user's profile may indicate that the user has heart condition, therefore it would be preferable if the responder was a cardiologist or cardio pulmonary surgeon in the event that the emergency code indicates that the user is having a heart attack.)
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector (U.S. 20110071880) in view of Clark (U.S. 20230345222) and further in view of Martin (U.S. 20230014760) and further in view of Sharma et al. (U.S. 20210005071).
For claim 8, the combination of Spector, Clark and Kim et al. do not disclose determining that a threshold amount of time has elapsed since receiving the first data, and wherein sending the second data is based at least in part on the threshold amount of time elapsing since receiving the first data.
In the same field of endeavor, Sharma et al. disclose determining that a threshold amount of time has elapsed since receiving the first data, and wherein sending the second data is based at least in part on the threshold amount of time elapsing since receiving the first data (at least [0354]. If the device determines that the user has not moved during the second period of time, the device transitions to an “alert” state 2608, and prepares to summon assistance for the user. For example, at the end of the second period of time (e.g., at the time t.sub.2), the device can present a notification to the user (e.g., a visual, auditory, and/or haptic notification) indicating that a request for assistance will be transmitted. If the user does not instruct the device to cancel the transmission by the end of a third period of time (e.g., between the time t.sub.2 and a time t.sub.3, where time t.sub.3 is after time t.sub.2), the device can transition to an “auto-dial” state and automatically transmit a notification to an emergency responder (state 2610). For example, the device can automatically dial an emergency response system, such as “911,” or initiating some other communication session.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Spector as taught by Sharma et al. for purpose of providing the user with an opportunity to manually cancel a transmission if assistance is not required.
For claim 11, the combination of Spector, Clark and Sharma et al. disclose the system of claim 8. Spector discloses wherein the second data further includes an indication of the communication channel (at least [0037]. After one or more responders are identified that meet the criteria set for the decision engine, the server will communicate with the responders 330A. The server contacts the selected responders so that they can confirm that they are available to be dispatched. The server waits an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 30 sec, 1 min., 2 min. etc.) for responses. The server receives acknowledgements from the responders 340A.)
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector (U.S. 20110071880) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 20250324228).
For claim 15, Spector discloses a method comprising:
determining a first location of the emergency event (at least Fig. 1 and [0023]. The user transmits an emergency request signal with the wireless communications device to a central server. In its simplest form, the emergency request signal includes a user identifier, the location of the user/emergency, and an emergency code.);
determining a second location of a first user (at least Fig. 1 and [0023]. The user transmits an emergency request signal with the wireless communications device to a central server. In its simplest form, the emergency request signal includes a user identifier, the location of the user/emergency, and an emergency code.);
determining a third location of a second user (at least [0026]. These wireless communication devices execute a client-side responder application that periodically transmits updated location information to the server including an identifier for the responder. The responder need not interact with the wireless communication device in order for this periodic);
determining, based at least on the first location, the second location, and the third location, to request the first user to respond to the emergency event (at least [0040]. The decision logic may recognize that a first responder is located on a highway, but further away from the emergency location than a second responder that is located on a suburban street, and determine that the first responder will reach the emergency location before the second responder because the first responder will be able to travel at highway speeds.);
sending, to a second device of the first user, a second notification for responding to the emergency event (at least [0037]. After one or more responders are identified that meet the criteria set for the decision engine, the server will communicate with the responders 330A.);
sending, to a second third device of the second user, a third notification associated with the emergency event (at least [0037]. After one or more responders are identified that meet the criteria set for the decision engine, the server will communicate with the responders 330A.); and
generating a communication channel associated with the emergency event (at least [0037]. After one or more responders are identified that meet the criteria set for the decision engine, the server will communicate with the responders 330A.) However, Spector does not disclose receiving a first notification associated with a first device issuing an emergency event, wherein the first notification is received based at least in part on an absence of input at the first device to cancel the emergency event.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. disclose receiving a first notification associated with a first device issuing an emergency event, wherein the first notification is received based at least in part on an absence of input at the first device to cancel the emergency event (at least [0015] and [0132]. The transmitting of the accident situation notification may include: starting a wait count for a predetermined time in which an emergency notification cancellation is possible for the accident occurrence event, and if there is no user input for the emergency notification cancellation within the predetermined time, transmitting the accident situation notification after the wait count terminates.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Spector as taught by Kim et al. for purpose of outputting a voice message “the emergency contact has been contacted” when there is no button input for emergency cancellation.
For claim 16, the combination of Spector and Kim et al. disclose the method of claim 15. Spector discloses generating a fourth indication within the communication channel that the first user has been requested for responding to the emergency event (at least [0026]-[0037]. After one or more responders are identified that meet the criteria set for the decision engine, the server will communicate with the responders 330A. The server contacts the selected responders so that they can confirm that they are available to be dispatched. The server waits an appropriate amount of time (e.g. 30 sec, 1 min., 2 min. etc.) for responses. The server receives acknowledgements from the responders 340A.)
For claim 17, the combination of Spector and Kim et al. disclose the method of claim 15. Spector discloses the communication channel includes the first user, the second user, and a third user that experienced the emergency event (at least [0047]. Based upon the received acknowledgement(s), the server will then send a dispatch request to one or more of the acknowledging responders. 495 It should be understood that even though a responder acknowledges a request to be dispatched, the responder may not actually be dispatched. For example, five responders may acknowledge a request to be dispatched and the server may choose to dispatch the closest among the five responders to the emergency location. When a responder is dispatched to the location of the emergency, the responder may be provided with an address of the emergency, latitude and longitude coordinates or directions. The directions can be determined by the server using known navigation techniques and based upon the location information as provided by the user in the emergency request transmission and found in the responders profile.)
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector (U.S. 20110071880) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 20250324228) and further in view of Clark (U.S. 20230345222)
For claim 18, the combination of Spector and Kim et al. do not disclose the method of claim 15, the first notification includes sensor data generated by one or more sensors of a third device worn by a third user that experienced the emergency event
In the same field of endeavor, Clark discloses the first indication includes sensor data generated by one or more sensors of a third device worn by a third user that experienced the emergency event (at least [0031]. The user scans their fingerprint into the electronic memory 48 upon initialization of the watch 12 and the user's personal information is downloaded into the electronic memory 48 via the transceiver 52. The control button 50 is depressed when the user experiences an emergency. The transceiver 52 contacts the emergency responders, the camera 70 turns on, the speaker 56 turns on and the microphone 58 turns on. In this way the user can communicate with the emergency responders in order to immediately receive assistance. Furthermore, the heart rate sensor 66 and the temperature sensor 68 facilitate the emergency responders to monitor the physical condition of the user. The transceiver 52 broadcasts the physical location of the watch 12 to the emergency responders thereby facilitating the emergency responders to effectively respond to the user's emergency.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Spector as taught by Clark for purpose of transmitting the physical location of the watch 12 to the emergency responders thereby facilitating the emergency responders to effectively respond to the user's emergency.
For claim 19, the combination of Spector, Kim et al. and Clark disclose the method of claim 15. Clark discloses the first notification is received from at least one of: the third device, or a fourth device communicatively coupled to the second device (at least [0031]. The user scans their fingerprint into the electronic memory 48 upon initialization of the watch 12 and the user's personal information is downloaded into the electronic memory 48 via the transceiver 52. The control button 50 is depressed when the user experiences an emergency. The transceiver 52 contacts the emergency responders, the camera 70 turns on, the speaker 56 turns on and the microphone 58 turns on. In this way the user can communicate with the emergency responders in order to immediately receive assistance. Furthermore, the heart rate sensor 66 and the temperature sensor 68 facilitate the emergency responders to monitor the physical condition of the user. The transceiver 52 broadcasts the physical location of the watch 12 to the emergency responders thereby facilitating the emergency responders to effectively respond to the user's emergency.)
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spector (U.S. 20110071880) in view of Kim et al. (U.S. 20250324228) and further in view of Sharma et al. (U.S. 20210005071).
For claim 8, the combination of Spector and Kim do not disclose determining that a threshold amount of time has elapsed without receiving a fourth notification to cancel the emergency event, and wherein sending the second notification is based at least in part on the threshold amount of time elapsing without receiving the fourth notification
In the same field of endeavor, Sharma et al. disclose determining that a threshold amount of time has elapsed without receiving a fourth notification to cancel the emergency event, and wherein sending the second notification is based at least in part on the threshold amount of time elapsing without receiving the fourth notification (at least [0354]. If the device determines that the user has not moved during the second period of time, the device transitions to an “alert” state 2608, and prepares to summon assistance for the user. For example, at the end of the second period of time (e.g., at the time t.sub.2), the device can present a notification to the user (e.g., a visual, auditory, and/or haptic notification) indicating that a request for assistance will be transmitted. If the user does not instruct the device to cancel the transmission by the end of a third period of time (e.g., between the time t.sub.2 and a time t.sub.3, where time t.sub.3 is after time t.sub.2), the device can transition to an “auto-dial” state and automatically transmit a notification to an emergency responder (state 2610). For example, the device can automatically dial an emergency response system, such as “911,” or initiating some other communication session.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Spector as taught by Sharma et al. for purpose of providing the user with an opportunity to manually cancel a transmission if assistance is not required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowed:
Please see the reason cited, on pages 8-10 of the remarks, by applicant filed on 02/02/26.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAI PHUONG whose telephone number is 571-272-7896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached on 571-270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-7687.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DAI PHUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights