DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed 01/20/2026. Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 24-25 are currently pending in this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 10-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-15, 17-18 and 20, respectively, of copending Application No. 18/164,729 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present Application and the co-pending Application are drawn to a system and method, respectively for fall detection.
As per claim 1 of the present Application, both claim 1 of the present Application and claim 13 of the co-pending Application comprise a fall detection pendant comprising an accelerometer, a pressure sensor, and processing logic for identifying a fall event and determining whether a fall has occurred, and a device configured to receive information from the fall detection pendant and signal at least one of another device that the fall has occurred. Claim 13 of the co-pending Application differs from claim 1 of the present Application in that the co-pending application further claims the step to determine whether an acceleration is greater than a first value, whether an elevation change or barometric pressure change is greater than a second value, and the step of identifying a fall event is in response to either determination step, i.e. acceleration or elevation/barometric pressure. Claim 13 of the co-pending Application further claims the step of at least one of examining the measurements from the accelerometer or pressure sensor over a period of time or components of the acceleration to determine whether a fall has occurred. Claim 1 of the present Application also identifies a fall event based on data from the accelerometer and the pressure sensor and determines based on the fall event whether a fall has occurred. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify claim 13 of the co-pending Application by removing the additional limitations, as a matter of engineering choice, to conclude at claim 1 of the present Application. Such a modification would not render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose, and would thus yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claim 2 of the present Application is further rejected in view of claim 14 of the co-pending Application for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 3 of the present Application is further rejected in view of claim 14 of the co-pending Application for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 4 of the present Application is further rejected in view of claim 15 of the co-pending Application for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 10 of the present Application is further rejected in view of claim 17 of the co-pending Application for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 11 of the present Application is further rejected in view of claim 17 of the co-pending Application for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 12 of the present Application is further rejected in view of claim 18 of the co-pending Application for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 13 of the present Application is further rejected in view of claim 13 of the co-pending Application for similar reasons as claim 1 above. It is noted that although claim 13 of the present Application includes the determine and identify steps of the co-pending Application, claim 13 of the present Application does not include the examine steps. However, it would still be obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify claim 13 of the co-pending Application to conclude at claim 13 of the present Application for the same reasons with respect to claim 1 of the present Application above.
Claim 14 of the present Application is further rejected in view of claim 20 of the co-pending Application for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, 19-21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (U.S. 2018/0174420 A1) in view of Franco, JR et al. (U.S. 2005/0093709 A1), in view of PIJL (U.S. 2020/0410837 A1).
Claim 1, Clark teaches:
A system (Clark, Fig. 1), comprising:
a fall detection communicator configured to be worn by a user (Clark, Fig. 1: 115, Paragraphs [0037-0038], The FM communicator 115 is configured to be attached to a portion of a body. The pressure sensors of the FM communicator 115 may be implemented as a neck-worn pendant (see Clark, Paragraph [0115]).), wherein the fall detection communicator comprises:
an accelerometer configured to measure acceleration,
a pressure sensor configured to measure barometric pressure (Clark, Paragraph [0039], The FM communicator 115 includes accelerometer(s) and pressure sensor(s).), and processing logic (Clark, Paragraph [0040], The tracked data may be processed and used by the FM communicator 115, which may operate as a portable computer that performs prescribed mathematical and logical operations (see Clark, Paragraph [0037]).) configured to:
identify a fall event based on data from the accelerometer and the pressure sensor, and
determine, based on the fall event, whether a fall has occurred (Clark, Paragraph [0048], The FM communicator 115 utilizes a combination of inertial sensors, e.g. tri-axial accelerometers and high-sensitivity pressure sensors, to reliably detect both “hard” and “soft” falls, near falls and stumbles or gait changes.);
a first repeater device (Clark, Fig. 1: 120) configured to:
receive information from the fall detection communicator indicating that a fall has occurred, and
signal at least one of a second repeater device or a coordinator device that the fall has occurred (Clark, Paragraph [0048], Each transceiver 120 receives fall status data from the FM communicator 115. Each transceiver 120 may then relay fall event data to response unit (RU) 150, which is functionally equivalent to a second repeater device or a coordinator device. Alternatively, access point 130 is also functionally equivalent to a coordinator device (see Clark, Fig. 1: 130, Paragraph [0041]).); and
a locator devices is configured to:
receive, from the fall detection communicator and via a medium, a signal that includes data associated with the fall detection communicator (Clark, Paragraph [0072], A docking station is functionally equivalent to a locator device that may be used to receive fall condition data from the FM communicator 115, i.e. FMC device 320, to be transmitted to a transceiver 120.), and
transmit, to the first repeater device, information indicating a location of the fall detection communicator (Clark, Paragraph [0043], Fall data includes location data.),
examine measurements from the pressure sensor at a first time after the fall event has occurred that is indicative that a wearer of the pendant has gotten up from a possible fall (Clark, Paragraph [0050], The FM communicator 115 utilizes a combination of altitude data with movement data to determine a fall condition, a period of inactivity after a fall event and/or a near-fall event by utilizing a near-fall event detection algorithm. In the example of a period of inactivity following a fall event, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if the user 110 is active following a fall event, the activity of the user is potentially indicative that the user has gotten up from a possible fall.) and the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor (Clark, Paragraphs [0050] and [0063], An “anomaly” is interpreted as something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. With respect to a detected fall, one example of what could be standard, normal, or expected is for the user to lose consciousness and require assistance after a fall. If, however, the user shows movements after a detected fall, the movement may indicate that the detected fall is an anomaly because the user has not lost consciousness and may not require assistance. As per the limitation of “an external factor”, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a plurality of different possible causes of a fall, including running into objects (see Clark, Paragraph [0051]) or slipping and tripping events (see Clark, Paragraph [0097]).).
Clark does not explicitly teach:
The FM communicator fully incorporated into a pendant; and
a plurality of locator devices, wherein each of the plurality of locator devices is associated with a particular location, and
the locator device receiving a signal via a wireless medium and the signal includes an identifier,
transmit, to the first repeater device, information indicating a location of the fall detection pendant based on the particular location associated with the first locator device,
wherein the processing logic is further configured to:
examine a measurement from the pressure sensor at a first time after the fall event has occurred, and
determine based on the measurement from the pressure sensor at the first time whether the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor or an erroneous pressure reading.
As per the limitation of a pendant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Clark by integrating the components of the FM communicator into a pendant (see Clark, Paragraph [0115]). Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the FM communicator, and would thus yield predictable results.
As per the limitation of a wireless medium, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the docking station to include a wireless medium, via substitution, as a matter of engineering choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the transmitting/exchanging of signals may be done via wires or wirelessly, and therefore would be motivated to substitute a wireless medium without changing the principal operation of the system, as a whole (see Clark, Paragraph [0047]). Therefore, such a modification would yield predictable results.
As per the limitation of the signal includes an identifier, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the signal to identify the user 110, such that data received at the transceiver 120 can be correlated with a particular user 110. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would ensure that the devices operate for their intended use, e.g. that the received fall data is not associated with another user 110.
See MPEP 2144.04.
Franco teaches:
A plurality of locator devices (Franco, Fig. 1: 16, Paragraph [0010], Each repeater node subsequent to a first repeater node is interpreted as a locator device. For example, a repeater node closest to the hub node may be interpreted as a “repeater device” whereas the remaining repeater nodes within communication range of mobile node but not in direct communication range of hub node may be interpreted as “locator devices”.), wherein each of the plurality of locator devices is associated with a particular location (Franco, Paragraph [0011], Each repeater node is correlated with their physical location a priori upon installation.), and transmit, to the first repeater device, information indicating a location of the fall detection node based on the particular location associated with the first locator device (Franco, Paragraphs [0010-0011], The repeater nodes transmit data from mobile nodes and sensor nodes to the hub node. Repeater nodes can be used to sense location of the mobile nodes based on the signal strength of signals received from the mobile nodes (see Franco, Paragraph [0024]). Thus, the data from a repeater node provides a unique location information based on which repeater nodes receive a given signal (see Franco, Paragraph [0037]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Clark by integrating the teaching of an ad hoc network, as taught by Franco.
The motivation would be to improve the communication coverage of the system from anywhere in a care zone (see Franco, Paragraphs [0011] and [0037]).
Clark in view of Franco does not specifically teach:
Wherein the processing logic is further configured to:
examine a measurement from the pressure sensor at a first time after the fall event has occurred, and
determine based on the measurement from the pressure sensor at the first time whether the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor or an erroneous pressure reading.
PIJL teaches:
Examine a measurement from the pressure sensor at a first time after the fall event has occurred (PIJL, Paragraph [0092], The processing unit 12 processes air pressure measurements after detecting a fall.), and
determine based on the measurement from the pressure sensor at the first time whether the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor or an erroneous pressure reading (PIJL, Paragraph [0092], The processing unit 12 determines that the subject has stood up after the fall was detected. A standard, normal, or expected fall event is interpreted as a situation in which the revocation period expires without a response from the subject, necessitating that the fall alert to be generated (see PIJL, Paragraph [0093]). When the subject has stood up after a fall prior to the expiration of the revocation period, the fall is thus an “anomaly”, because the processing unit does not perform a fall alert action (see PIJL, Paragraph [0094]). As per the limitation of an “external factor”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for an external factor to be present in causing the subject to fall, e.g. a tripping hazard.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Clark in view of Franco, by integrating the teaching of determining whether a subject has stood up, as taught by PIJL.
The motivation would be to determine whether to perform a fall alert action for the fall in order to determine whether a subject needs assistance after a fall (see PIJL, Paragraphs [0093] and [0097]).
Claim 2, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a gateway device (Clark, Fig. 1: 150),
wherein the first repeater device is further configured to:
transmit information to the gateway device indicating that the fall has occurred (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The transceivers 120 establish bi-directional communication with the RU 150 and transmit fall event data associated with one or more users 110 to the RU 150.), and
wherein the information includes a location, an acceleration and an elevation change associated with the fall (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The fall event data includes current location data, inertial data, and altitude data.), and
wherein the gateway device is configured to transmit the information to a data storage device via a wireless network (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The RU 150 may store the fall event data in the database 160 for each user 110. The database 160 may be configured to communicate over a communication media that includes both wired and/or wireless communications links (see Clark, Paragraph [0047]).).
Claim 3, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 2, further comprising:
the data storage device, wherein the data storage device is configured to store measurements and fall related data associated with the fall detection pendant (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The RU 150 may store the fall event data in the database 160 for each user 110. It is noted that the RU 150 may include a server which includes the database 160 (see Clark, Paragraph [0043]).), and
wherein the data storage device includes at least one application and an application programming interface (API) configured to allow remote access to the stored measurements and fall related data (Clark, Paragraph [0045], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the at least one application of database 160 to be functionally equivalent to at least one application and an application programming interface (API). The database 160 includes at least one application program that can accept connections to service requests from clients by sending back responses to the clients, e.g. remote access.).
Claim 4, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 3, further comprising:
a fall monitoring system (Clark, Fig. 1) configured to:
receive, from the data storage device, fall information including a location associated with the fall (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The RU 150 may be configured to dispatch emergency personnel to the user’s 110 location based on the user data retrieved from the database 160. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the dispatched emergency personnel to have at least one device/system for receiving the information from the RU 150 and database 160.), and
dispatch personnel or contact the user of the fall detection pendant in response to receiving the fall information (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The RU 150 may be configured to dispatch emergency personnel to the user’s 110 location based on the user data retrieved from the database 160.).
Claim 5, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 3, wherein the data storage device is configured to store information identifying at least two of:
a location of the fall,
a type of fall,
a severity associated with the fall,
at least one of an acceleration or elevation change associated with the fall,
at least one of an angle or orientation of the fall,
whether the fall is in a forward direction or a backward direction,
whether the user has fallen one or more other times within a period of time, or details associated with the user (Clark, Paragraphs [0041] and [0043], The RU 150 in combination with database 160 includes at least fall status data, e.g. severity of and type of fall (see Clark, Paragraph [0048]).).
Claim 7, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the fall detection pendant includes a battery (Clark, Paragraph [0062]), wherein the battery is configured to:
continuously provide power to the accelerometer and pressure sensor, and not continuously provide power to other components of the fall detection pendant (Clark, Paragraph [0069], The processor 3210 may include multiple power-saving modes which enables modifying the sampling rates of both the accelerometer(s) and the altimeter(s). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the power-saving modes to continuously sample the accelerometer(s) and altimeter(s) while not sampling other components/sensors of the system, as a matter of engineering choice, in order to preserve battery life. More specifically, the processor 3210 may sample inertial and pressure data at a specific intervals, i.e. continuously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the processor 3210 to not sample/activate other components of the communicator because it is specifically sampling specific sensors, e.g. the transceiver 3230.).
Claim 8, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the first repeater device is configured to:
signal the coordinator device and a gateway device indicating that the fall has occurred (Clark, Paragraph [0041], The RU 150 and the access point 130 communicate with transceiver 120 to receive fall data.).
Claim 9, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a data storage device configured to:
receive data from the fall detection pendant (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The RSU 150, and subsequently database 160, receives fall event data from transceivers 120 which originate from FM communicators 115.), and
store information identifying a type of alarm received from the fall detection pendant and information identifying the location of the fall detection pendant (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The fall event data includes inertial data, physiologic data, altitude data, location data, and other data. The data regarding the fall, e.g. inertial data, physiologic data, altitude data, is functionally equivalent to identifying a type of alarm, i.e. a type of detected fall (see Clark, Paragraph [0057]).).
Claim 10, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein when the processing logic is further configured to at least one of:
examine measurements from the accelerometer or pressure sensor over a period of time (Clark, Paragraph [0050], The FM communicator 115 generates data and associated time data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the FM communicator 115 to generate its data, e.g. movement data and altitude data, over a period of time.), or examine components of the acceleration (Clark, Paragraph [0064], The FMC device 320, which represents FM communicator 115 (see Clark, Paragraph [0062]), can provide information on movements, positions, and orientations of the user 110 in three dimensional space, wherein each dimension represents a component of the acceleration (see also Clark, Paragraph [0070]).).
Claim 11, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 10, wherein when the fall detection pendant is at least one of examining the measurements from the accelerometer or pressure sensor over a period of time or examining components of the acceleration, the processing logic is configured to:
examine components of the acceleration in three directions with respect to the fall detection pendant to identify movement of the fall detection pendant not associated with a fall (Clark, Paragraph [0064], The FMC device 320, which represents FM communicator 115 (see Clark, Paragraph [0062]), can provide information on movements, positions, and orientations of the user 110 in three dimensional space, wherein each dimension represents a component/direction of the acceleration (see also Clark, Paragraph [0070]). It is noted that with the data, the FM communicator 115 can then determine if the fall was an actual fall or a near fall (see Clark, Paragraph [0062]).).
Claim 13, Clark in view of Franco further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein when determining whether a fall has occurred, the processing logic is configured to:
determine, based on measurements from the accelerometer and pressure sensor, whether an acceleration greater than a first value has been detected (Clark, Paragraph [0057], The FM communicator 115 may be programmed with a plurality of threshold values, wherein each threshold value is indicative of whether a fall is a “soft” or “hard” fall. The corresponding threshold for accelerometers is thus at least one first value.),
determine, based on measurements from the pressure sensor, whether an elevation change or barometric pressure change greater than a second value has been detected (Clark, Paragraph [0057], The FM communicator 115 may be programmed with a plurality of threshold values, wherein each threshold value is indicative of whether a fall is a “soft” or “hard” fall. The corresponding threshold for pressure sensors is thus at least one second value),
determine that no fall has occurred or the user has gotten up from a possible fall based on the measurement from the pressure sensor at the first time (PIJL, Paragraph [0092]), and
identify that the fall has occurred in response to determining that the acceleration greater than the first value has been detected, that the elevation change or barometric pressure change greater than the second value has been detected (Clark, Paragraph [0057], If the values of the measured data, e.g. acceleration and pressure/altitude, exceed the set thresholds, it is indicative of a fall and a severity of the fall can be determined.), and that the measurement from the pressure sensor at the first time is greater than a third value (PIJL, Paragraph [0092], An example of pressure would be whether the change in pressure exceeds a value in a given time period (see PIJL, Paragraph [0045]).).
Claim 14, Clark teaches:
A method (Clark, Fig. 1), comprising:
measuring, by a fall detection communicator configured to be worn by a user (Clark, Fig. 1: 115, Paragraphs [0037-0038], The FM communicator 115 is configured to be attached to a portion of a body. The pressure sensors of the FM communicator 115 may be implemented as a neck-worn pendant (see Clark, Paragraph [0115]).), acceleration (Clark, Paragraph [0039], The FM communicator 115 includes accelerometer(s) and pressure sensor(s).);
measuring, by the fall detection communicator, barometric pressure (Clark, Paragraph [0039], The FM communicator 115 includes accelerometer(s) and pressure sensor(s).);
identifying, by the fall detection communicator, a fall event based on the measured acceleration and barometric pressure (Clark, Paragraph [0048], The FM communicator 115 utilizes a combination of inertial sensors, e.g. tri-axial accelerometers and high-sensitivity pressure sensors, to reliably detect both “hard” and “soft” falls, near falls and stumbles or gait changes.);
determining, by the fall detection communicator and based on the fall event, whether a fall has occurred (Clark, Paragraph [0048], The FM communicator 115 utilizes a combination of inertial sensors, e.g. tri-axial accelerometers and high-sensitivity pressure sensors, to reliably detect both “hard” and “soft” falls, near falls and stumbles or gait changes.);
forwarding, by the fall detection communicator and to a first receiver device, in response to determining that a fall has occurred, information indicating that the fall has occurred (Clark, Paragraph [0048], Each transceiver 120 receives fall status data from the FM communicator 115.); and
transmitting, by the first receiver device and to at least one of a repeater device or a coordinator device, an indication that the fall has occurred (Clark, Paragraph [0048], Each transceiver 120 receives fall status data from the FM communicator 115. Each transceiver 120 may then relay fall event data to response unit (RU) 150, which is functionally equivalent to a repeater device or a coordinator device. Alternatively, access point 130 is also functionally equivalent to a coordinator device (see Clark, Fig. 1: 130, Paragraph [0041]).);
receiving, by a first locator device and from the fall detection communicator via a medium, a signal that includes data associated with the fall detection communicator (Clark, Paragraph [0072], A docking station is functionally equivalent to a locator device that may be used to receive fall condition data from the FM communicator 115, i.e. FMC device 320, to be transmitted to a transceiver 120.); and
transmitting, by the first locator and to the first receiver device, information indicating a location of the fall detection communicator (Clark, Paragraph [0043], Fall data includes location data.);
and the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor (Clark, Paragraphs [0050] and [0063], An “anomaly” is interpreted as something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. With respect to a detected fall, one example of what could be standard, normal, or expected is for the user to lose consciousness and require assistance after a fall. If, however, the user shows movements after a detected fall, the movement may indicate that the detected fall is an anomaly because the user has not lost consciousness and may not require assistance. As per the limitation of “an external factor”, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a plurality of different possible causes of a fall, including running into objects (see Clark, Paragraph [0051]) or slipping and tripping events (see Clark, Paragraph [0097]).).
Clark does not explicitly teach:
The FM communicator fully incorporated into a pendant;
a plurality of locator devices, the locator device receiving a signal via a wireless medium and the signal includes an identifier, wherein each of the plurality of locator devices is associated with a particular location,
transmitting, by the first locator and to the first receiver device, information indicating a location of the fall detection pendant based on the particular location associated with the first locator device;
examining the barometric pressure at a first time after the fall event has occurred; and
determining, based on the barometric pressure at the first time, whether the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor or an erroneous pressure reading.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Clark by integrating the components of the FM communicator into a pendant (see Clark, Paragraph [0115]). Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the FM communicator, and would thus yield predictable results. See MPEP 2144.04.
As per the limitation of a pendant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Clark by integrating the components of the FM communicator into a pendant (see Clark, Paragraph [0115]). Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the FM communicator, and would thus yield predictable results.
As per the limitation of a wireless medium, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the docking station to include a wireless medium, via substitution, as a matter of engineering choice. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the transmitting/exchanging of signals may be done via wires or wirelessly, and therefore would be motivated to substitute a wireless medium without changing the principal operation of the system, as a whole (see Clark, Paragraph [0047]). Therefore, such a modification would yield predictable results.
As per the limitation of the signal includes an identifier, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the signal to identify the user 110, such that data received at the transceiver 120 can be correlated with a particular user 110. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would ensure that the devices operate for their intended use, e.g. that the received fall data is not associated with another user 110.
See MPEP 2144.04.
Franco teaches:
A plurality of locator devices (Franco, Fig. 1: 16, Paragraph [0010], Each repeater node subsequent to a first repeater node is interpreted as a locator device. For example, a repeater node closest to the hub node may be interpreted as a “repeater device” whereas the remaining repeater nodes within communication range of mobile node but not in direct communication range of hub node may be interpreted as “locator devices”.), wherein each of the plurality of locator devices is associated with a particular location (Franco, Paragraph [0011], Each repeater node is correlated with their physical location a priori upon installation.), and transmitting, by the first locator and to the first receiver device, information indicating a location of the fall detection node based on the particular location associated with the first locator device (Franco, Paragraphs [0010-0011], The repeater nodes transmit data from mobile nodes and sensor nodes to the hub node. Repeater nodes can be used to sense location of the mobile nodes based on the signal strength of signals received from the mobile nodes (see Franco, Paragraph [0024]). Thus, the data from a repeater node provides a unique location information based on which repeater nodes receive a given signal (see Franco, Paragraph [0037]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Clark by integrating the teaching of an ad hoc network, as taught by Franco.
The motivation would be to improve the communication coverage of the system from anywhere in a care zone (see Franco, Paragraphs [0011] and [0037]).
Clark in view of Franco does not specifically teach:
Examining the barometric pressure at a first time after the fall event has occurred; and
determining, based on the barometric pressure at the first time, whether the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor or an erroneous pressure reading.
PIJL teaches:
Examining the barometric pressure at a first time after the fall event has occurred (PIJL, Paragraph [0092], The processing unit 12 processes air pressure measurements after detecting a fall.); and
determining, based on the barometric pressure at the first time, whether the event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor or an erroneous pressure reading (PIJL, Paragraph [0092], The processing unit 12 determines that the subject has stood up after the fall was detected. A standard, normal, or expected fall event is interpreted as a situation in which the revocation period expires without a response from the subject, necessitating that the fall alert to be generated (see PIJL, Paragraph [0093]). When the subject has stood up after a fall prior to the expiration of the revocation period, the fall is thus an “anomaly”, because the processing unit does not perform a fall alert action (see PIJL, Paragraph [0094]). As per the limitation of an “external factor”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for an external factor to be present in causing the subject to fall, e.g. a tripping hazard.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Clark in view of Franco, by integrating the teaching of determining whether a subject has stood up, as taught by PIJL.
The motivation would be to determine whether to perform a fall alert action for the fall in order to determine whether a subject needs assistance after a fall (see PIJL, Paragraphs [0093] and [0097]).
Claim 15, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The method of claim 14, further comprising:
determining that the user has gotten up from a possible fall or that no fall occurred based on the barometric pressure at the first time (PIJL, Paragraph [0092], The processing unit 12 determines that the subject has stood up after the fall was detected.);
not forwarding, by the fall detection pendant, information indicating that the fall has occurred in response to determining the user has gotten up from a possible fall or that no fall occurred (PIJL, Paragraph [0094], If the subject stands up before the revocation period expires, the processing unit 12 does not perform a fall alert action, e.g. sending data to a call centre.);
transmitting, by the first receiver device, fall related data indicating that a fall occurred to a gateway device (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The transceivers 120 establish bi-directional communication with the RU 150 and transmit fall event data associated with one or more users 110 to the RU 150.), wherein the fall related data includes a location, an acceleration and an elevation change associated with the fall (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The fall event data includes current location data, inertial data, and altitude data.); and
transmitting, by the gateway device and via a wireless network, the fall related data to a fall data storage device (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The RU 150 may store the fall event data in the database 160 for each user 110. The database 160 may be configured to communicate over a communication media that includes both wired and/or wireless communications links (see Clark, Paragraph [0047]).).
Claim 16, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The method of claim 15, further comprising:
storing, by the fall data storage device, the fall related data (Clark, Paragraph [0043]); and
providing, by the fall data storage device, an application programming interface (API) configured to allow remote access to the stored measurements and fall related data (Clark, Paragraph [0045], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the at least one application of database 160 to be functionally equivalent to at least one application and an application programming interface (API). The database 160 includes at least one application program that can accept connections to service requests from clients by sending back responses to the clients, e.g. remote access.).
Claim 17, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The method of claim 16, wherein the storing fall related data comprises storing information identifying at least two of:
a location of the fall,
a type of fall,
a severity associated with the fall,
at least one of an acceleration or elevation change associated with the fall,
at least one of an angle or orientation of the fall,
whether the fall is in a forward direction or a backward direction,
whether the user has fallen one or more other times within a period of time, or
details associated with the user (Clark, Paragraphs [0041] and [0043], The RU 150 in combination with database 160 includes at least fall status data, e.g. severity of and type of fall (see Clark, Paragraph [0048]).).
Claim 19, Clark teaches:
A system (Clark, Fig. 1) comprising:
a fall detection communicator configured to be worn by a user (Clark, Fig. 1: 115, Paragraphs [0037-0038], The FM communicator 115 is configured to be attached to a portion of a body. The pressure sensors of the FM communicator 115 may be implemented as a neck-worn pendant (see Clark, Paragraph [0115]).), wherein the fall detection communicator is configured to determine whether a fall by the user has occurred (Clark, Paragraph [0048], The FM communicator 115 utilizes a combination of inertial sensors, e.g. tri-axial accelerometers and high-sensitivity pressure sensors, to reliably detect both “hard” and “soft” falls, near falls and stumbles or gait changes.), and wherein the fall detection communicator includes a pressure sensor (Clark, Paragraph [0039], The FM communicator 115 includes accelerometer(s) and pressure sensor(s). The Examiner notes that previous claim 23, now cancelled, claimed the pressure sensor was included “in the fall detection pendant”, which is structurally narrower than the “fall detection pendant includes a pressure sensor”. Therefore, the Applicant’s amendment to claim 19 to incorporate limitations from previous claim 23 changes the scope of claim 19 relative to claim 23, previously depending on claim 19.);
a first repeater device (Clark, Fig. 1: 120) configured to:
receive information from the fall detection communicator indicating that a fall has occurred, and
signal at least one of a second repeater device or a coordinator device that the fall has occurred (Clark, Paragraph [0048], Each transceiver 120 receives fall status data from the FM communicator 115. Each transceiver 120 may then relay fall event data to response unit (RU) 150, which is functionally equivalent to a second repeater device or a coordinator device. Alternatively, access point 130 is also functionally equivalent to a coordinator device (see Clark, Fig. 1: 130, Paragraph [0041]).);
wherein a first one locator devices is configured to:
receive, from the fall detection pendant, a signal associated with the fall detection communicator (Clark, Paragraph [0072], A docking station is functionally equivalent to a locator device that may be used to receive fall condition data from the FM communicator 115, i.e. FMC device 320, to be transmitted to a transceiver 120.), and
transmit, to the first repeater device, information indicating a location of the fall detection communicator (Clark, Paragraph [0043], Fall data includes location data.);
a coordinator device configured to receive the signal from the first repeater device or the second repeater device (Clark, Fig. 1: 150, Paragraph [0041], The RU 150 may receive signals from transceivers 120 directly or through access point 130. The RU 150 is functionally equivalent to a coordinator device.) and forward information associated with the received signal to a fall monitoring system (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The dispatched emergency personnel represent a fall monitoring system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the emergency personnel to have a system associated with it in order to effectively receive the data from the RU 150.);
a gateway device (Clark, Fig. 1: 150) configured to:
receive information from the first repeater device indicating that the fall has occurred (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The transceivers 120 establish bi-directional communication with the RU 150 and transmit fall event data associated with one or more users 110 to the RU 150.), wherein the information includes a location, an acceleration and an elevation change associated with the fall (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The fall event data includes current location data, inertial data, and altitude data.), and
transmit the received information to a data storage device (Clark, Fig. 1: 160) via a wireless network (The database 160 may be configured to communicate over a communication media that includes both wired and/or wireless communications links (see Clark, Paragraph [0047]).);
the data storage device, wherein the data storage device is configured to store measurements and fall related data associated with the fall detection communicator (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The RU 150 may store the fall event data in the database 160 for each user 110. It is noted that RU 150 may include a server which includes the database 160 (see Clark, Paragraph [0043]).), wherein the data storage device includes at least one application and an application programming interface (API) configured to allow remote access to the stored measurements and fall related data (Clark, Paragraph [0045], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the at least one application of database 160 to be functionally equivalent to at least one application and an application programming interface (API). The database 160 includes at least one application program that can accept connections to service requests from clients by sending back responses to the clients, e.g. remote access.); and
the fall monitoring system, wherein the fall monitoring system is located remotely from the gateway device and the data storage device, and is configured to receive, from the data storage device, fall information including a location associated with the fall (Clark, Paragraph [0043], User data and location data may be used when dispatching emergency personnel. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the user data to also be conveyed to the emergency personnel. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would yield predictable results.); and
and the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor (Clark, Paragraphs [0050] and [0063], An “anomaly” is interpreted as something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. With respect to a detected fall, one example of what could be standard, normal, or expected is for the user to lose consciousness and require assistance after a fall. If, however, the user shows movements after a detected fall, the movement may indicate that the detected fall is an anomaly because the user has not lost consciousness and may not require assistance. As per the limitation of “an external factor”, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize a plurality of different possible causes of a fall, including running into objects (see Clark, Paragraph [0051]) or slipping and tripping events (see Clark, Paragraph [0097]).).
Clark does not explicitly teach:
The FM communicator fully incorporated into a pendant,
a plurality of locator devices, wherein each of the plurality of locator devices is associated with a particular location,
receive a signal that includes an identifier associated with the fall detection pendant,
transmit, to the first repeater device, information indicating a location of the fall detection pendant, based on the location associated with the first locator device;
wherein the fall detection pendant is further configured to:
examine measurement from the pressure sensor at a first time after the fall has occurred to determine whether a pressure measured by the pressure sensor at the first time indicates that the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor or an erroneous pressure reading.
As per the limitation of a pendant, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Clark by integrating the components of the FM communicator into a pendant (see Clark, Paragraph [0115]). Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the FM communicator, and would thus yield predictable results.
As per the limitation of the signal includes an identifier, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the signal to identify the user 110, such that data received at the transceiver 120 can be correlated with a particular user 110. Such a modification would not change the principal operation of the system, as a whole, and would ensure that the devices operate for their intended use, e.g. that the received fall data is not associated with another user 110.
Franco teaches:
A plurality of locator devices (Franco, Fig. 1: 16, Paragraph [0010], Each repeater node subsequent to a first repeater node is interpreted as a locator device. For example, a repeater node closest to the hub node may be interpreted as a “repeater device” whereas the remaining repeater nodes within communication range of mobile node but not in direct communication range of hub node may be interpreted as “locator devices”.), wherein each of the plurality of locator devices is associated with a particular location (Franco, Paragraph [0011], Each repeater node is correlated with their physical location a priori upon installation.), and
transmit, to the first repeater device, information indicating a location of the fall detection node, based on the location associated with the first locator device (Franco, Paragraphs [0010-0011], The repeater nodes transmit data from mobile nodes and sensor nodes to the hub node. Repeater nodes can be used to sense location of the mobile nodes based on the signal strength of signals received from the mobile nodes (see Franco, Paragraph [0024]). Thus, the data from a repeater node provides a unique location information based on which repeater nodes receive a given signal (see Franco, Paragraph [0037]).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system of Clark by integrating the teaching of an ad hoc network, as taught by Franco.
The motivation would be to improve the communication coverage of the system from anywhere in a care zone (see Franco, Paragraphs [0011] and [0037]).
Clark in view of Franco does not specifically teach:
Wherein the fall detection pendant is further configured to:
examine measurement from the pressure sensor at a first time after the fall has occurred to determine whether a pressure measured by the pressure sensor at the first time indicates that the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor or an erroneous pressure reading.
PIJL teaches:
Examine measurement from the pressure sensor at a first time after the fall has occurred (PIJL, Paragraph [0092], The processing unit 12 processes air pressure measurements after detecting a fall.) to determine whether a pressure measured by the pressure sensor at the first time indicates that the fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor or an erroneous pressure reading (PIJL, Paragraph [0092], The processing unit 12 determines that the subject has stood up after the fall was detected. A standard, normal, or expected fall event is interpreted as a situation in which the revocation period expires without a response from the subject, necessitating that the fall alert to be generated (see PIJL, Paragraph [0093]). When the subject has stood up after a fall prior to the expiration of the revocation period, the fall is thus an “anomaly”, because the processing unit does not perform a fall alert action (see PIJL, Paragraph [0094]). As per the limitation of an “external factor”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for an external factor to be present in causing the subject to fall, e.g. a tripping hazard.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the system in Clark in view of Franco, by integrating the teaching of determining whether a subject has stood up, as taught by PIJL.
The motivation would be to determine whether to perform a fall alert action for the fall in order to determine whether a subject needs assistance after a fall (see PIJL, Paragraphs [0093] and [0097]).
Claim 20, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 19, wherein the fall monitoring system is further configured to:
dispatch personnel or contact the user of the fall detection pendant in response to receiving the fall information (Clark, Paragraph [0043], The RU 150 may be configured to dispatch emergency personnel to the user’s 110 location based on the user data retrieved from the database 160.).
Claim 21, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The method of claim 14, further comprising: continuously providing power to the accelerometer and pressure sensor, and not continuously providing power to other components of the fall detection pendant (Clark, Paragraph [0069], The processor 3210 may include multiple power-saving modes which enables modifying the sampling rates of both the accelerometer(s) and the altimeter(s). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the power-saving modes to continuously sample the accelerometer(s) and altimeter(s) while not sampling other components/sensors of the system, as a matter of engineering choice, in order to preserve battery life. More specifically, the processor 3210 may sample inertial and pressure data at a specific intervals, i.e. continuously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the processor 3210 to not sample/activate other components of the communicator because it is specifically sampling specific sensors, e.g. the transceiver 3230.).
Claim 24, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 1, wherein the processing logic is further configured to: not transmit information to the first repeater device indicating that the fall has occurred in response to determining that the user has gotten up from a possible fall (PIJL, Paragraph [0094], If the subject stands up before the revocation period expires, the processing unit 12 does not perform a fall alert action, e.g. sending data to a call centre.).
Claim 25, Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL further teaches:
The system of claim 19, wherein the fall detection pendant is further configured to: determine that no fall has occurred or the user has gotten up from the fall based on the pressure measured by the pressure sensor at the first time (PIJL, Paragraph [0092]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument regarding the amendments to independent claims 1, 14, and 19, the Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons set forth in the rejection above. Applicant’s amendment to define a “fall event represents an anomaly caused by an external factor or an erroneous pressure reading” is in the alternative form, thus only requiring an anomaly or an erroneous pressure reading. As per an “anomaly”, as explained in the rejection above, an “anomaly” is interpreted as something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, as per the limitation of “external factors”, the claims do not define the determine step to “determine the external factor” or similar, but only that the anomaly is “caused by an external factor”. Thus, the claims, as currently amended, do not explicitly or inherently define the Applicant’s claims away from this interpretation.
In response to the Applicant's arguments regarding claim 7, that the cited reference fails to teach the step of continuously provide power to the accelerometer and the pressure sensor and not continuously provide power to other components of the fall detection pendant, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant's interpretation of the cited reference. The Applicant argues on Pages 14-15 that the Clark reference teaches a "standby mode" in which the current draw is low, and therefore provides power continuously to all components. First, the cited portion of the Clark reference in Paragraph [0069] discloses that the processor 3210 may include multiple (e.g. five) power-saving modes that may be ideal for battery-power applications, wherein one example includes a "standby" mode, which the Applicant references in the arguments. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, based on the disclosure, that the standby mode is only one of a plurality, e.g. five, power-saving modes accessible to the processor 3210. For example, when the user 110 is out of range of a transceiver 120, the RAM 3240 of the FMC device 320 may store the inertial and atmospheric pressure data until the FMC device 320 is in range of the transceiver 120 (see Clark, Paragraph [0072]). Additionally, the fall condition data may be uploaded at fixed or variable intervals. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that in this example, the sensors are continuously powered in order to collect their respective data, but the transceiver is not continuously powered until either the FMC device 320 is within range of transceiver 120 and/or based on a fixed or variable time interval. Therefore, with respect to the Applicant's arguments on Pages 15-16 regarding "maintaining synchrony", the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to the Applicant's argument on Page 15 that the limitations of claim 7 are clear and explicit, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the limitations are "explicit" with regards to the "not continuously provide power to other components of the fall detection pendant". The Applicant's specification discloses in Paragraph [0090] that other elements of pendant 110 may not be powered up until a pressure change and/or acceleration change are detected, however, the claims, in light of the specification, do not further define what the Applicant intends for the phrase "not continuously" to be interpreted. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably interpret "not continuously provide power" to include instances wherein the power is actively disconnected from the components, and/or that the components are merely turned off, as long as the other elements of pendant 110 are not powered up, to be consistent with the Applicant's specification.
In response to the Applicant's argument on Pages 16-17, the first, second, and third values, as currently presented, are treated as values that are unrelated to each other. Therefore, claim 13 is interpreted as requiring three separate conditions to be true, wherein a fall is detected when all three conditions are true. Because the cited references teach that a fall is determined when an acceleration is greater than a threshold and an elevation change or barometric pressure change greater than a threshold (see Clark, Paragraph [0057]), and additionally a fall is detected when a measured pressure change exceeds a value in a given time period (see PIJL, Paragraphs [0045] and [0092]), in the combination of Clark in view of Franco, in view of PIJL, all three conditions would yield a determination of a fall.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686