Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant requests further consideration in light of the amendments. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection is updated in light of the amendment(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 newly recites an opening forming a sealed cavity. These limitations are plainly opposites forming a contradiction. Claim 11 is therefore indefinite. Claims 12 & 13 make a similar recitations and are therefore indefinite. The user cannot be defined as a part of the system as it is not permitted under the scope of statutory classes under 101. Further a cavity does not reduce the sound emanating therethrough.The examiner is aware applicant defines an opening and the sealing is defined as closed by a user’s wrist. That is why the rejection is under 35 USC 112b and not 35 USC 112a. Forming a sealed opening would plainly be impossible. But forming a sealed opening by holding to a user’s wrist is indefinite because it isn’t a feature of the invention. Such a limitation is partially a statement of intended use, and partially a claim of the user’s anatomy being part of the claimed invention. The distinction being which way the user decides to view the claim. Either way forming a closed structure using a human body is not part of the invention as can reasonably be defined under 35 USC 112b. If applicant wants to claim an opening relative to a planar back such that it can rest against a user’s skin, applicant is free to make such a claim. For these reasons claims 11-13 are indefinite.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 2007/0183269) in view of Oh (US 2009/0147628).
With regard to claim 1 Baba discloses an electronic silent alarm apparatus (1 figure 1), comprising:
- a body worn alarm apparatus (1) having
- a housing (1, 10 figure 1) and including one or more
- buzzers (paragraph 15; 51, 52 figure 2) therein to impart vibration on said housing (figure 1, paragraphs 15-17), and
- a wireless receiver (paragraphs 171, 179);
- a display (3 figure 1, abstract); one or more
- processors (4 figure 2, abstract); and electronic
- memory (46 figure 2) storing one or more computer programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors (paragraph 54), the one or more computer programs including instructions (paragraph 54) for:
- depicting on the display a time input interface that includes permits receipt of a user input of an awakening time (paragraph 74; the timer operation is capable of being used to awaken a user. The nature of the user themselves is not capable of being part of the claimed invention. See 35 USC 101 and MPEP 2105);
- in accordance with said received user input of said awakening timer determining a first alarm initiation time which is prior to said awakening time (paragraph 74 a user inputs a time and the outputs are determined responsive thereto.);
- in accordance with said first alarm initiation time communicating a signal to said one or more buzzers to energizing energize said one or more buzzers to generate a first number of vibrations therefrom in a first phase for having a first time duration at said first alarm initiation time (paragraph 76 vibration patterns A to D);
- subsequent to said first time duration of said first phase- of vibrations (Vibration pattern A; paragraphs 76),
- determining a second alarm initiation time which is prior to said awakening time and after said first alarm initiation time (vibration pattern B paragraphs 91);
- in accordance with said second alarm initiation time, communicating a signal to said one or more buzzers to energize said one or more buzzers to generate a second number of vibrations therefrom for a second phase having a second time duration, said second phase being in between said first phase and said waking time (vibration pattern B paragraphs 91);
- at said waking time, energizing said buzzer to generate a third number of vibrations therefrom for a third phase having a third time duration, whereby a user is awakened in a sequence by said buzzer operating during said first phase and said second phase and said third phase (Vibration pattern C paragraph 92).
The actions of the user and the user are not within the scope of the invention. See 35 USC 101 regarding statutory classifications. The phrase is given weight to the extent possible. The system is capable of waking a user. See MPEP 2105. The claims are very clear what sort of outputs must occur and at what ordering. Thus the weight to the alarm type being capable of awakening a user is not afforded more weight than the structure, operation, and programming required to accomplish the stated function. Any more than that necessitates the living subject matter to be part of the system, and/or is a statement of intended use not binding to the invention as the preamble clearly limits the invention to the product claims. See MPEP 2111.02.
Baba does not disclose the claimed: using a touchscreen or voice to text conversion.
Oh teaches using a touchscreen (abstract, paragraphs 10, 25, 34) to set values.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba’s system to comprise: permits receipt of a user input of an awakening time using a touchscreen or voice to text conversion, as taught by Oh and known in the art. The reason for doing so would have been to allow the user to input the commands in additional, known and normal ways, as taught by Oh and generally within the purview of those skilled in the art of horology
With regard to claim 7 Baba and Oh teach the electronic silent alarm apparatus of claim 1 additionally including: a connector (11 figure 1) to hold a contact surface of the housing (1 figure 1) of the body worn alarm apparatus in a direct contact against the skin of the user (paragraph 45 – wristwatch; figure 1 of Baba); whereby and said direct contact minimizing reduces sound emanating from said one or more buzzer (51 figure 2).
Claim(s) 2, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 2007/0183269) in view of Oh (US 2009/0147628) in further view of Fegley (US 2003/0117272) and Kraft (US 2009/0231964).
With regard to claim 2 Baba and Oh teach the electronic silent alarm apparatus of claim 1 wherein said display (3) and said one or more processors (4) and said electronic memory (46) are located in a computing device having a wireless transmitter (paragraphs 171, 179).
Baba does not disclose the claimed “to establish which is in wireless communication with said body worn alarm apparatus” in combination with the other elements such that it may be construed that the display and the processor are in a 1st device remote from the body worn alarm apparatus comprising a buzzer.
Fegley (US 2003/0117272) teaches a table top timekeeping device (12 figure 1) and a wrist worn system (32) with a vibration motor for effecting a silent alarm/alert. Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba’s system with a main control unit and a wireless remove unit such that Baba’s system includes at least one display and said one or more processors and said electronic memory are located in a computing device having a wireless transmitter to establish which is in wireless communication with said body worn alarm apparatus, as taught by Fegley. The reason for doing so would have been to provide command and control from a larger more robust central system and to provide the vibration output from a simpler remote system to facilitate improved packaging and user interface. In the context of a sleeping situation the clear motivation is to provide an output that only one user can perceive so as to not disturb an adjacent user, as taught by Fegley. In the context of a game system one motivation can be the same, providing an official with information that would distract players. There are additional motivations including providing output that are coordinated such as to a plurality of officials or players using a synchronized central time source.
As a matter of supplemental consideration see Kraft. Kraft teaches an alarm output in a 1st, 2nd, 3rd output that increments in intensity. See figure 2. See the progression from gentle, to average, to harsh in incrementing step through a series of time delays. There is a clear motivation to provide 1st, 2nd, 3rd outputs in vibration format through a remote system, as taught by Kraft and Fegley. Thus in the context of “permits receipt of a user input of an awakening time” claim 1 there is clear motivation to provide a full and complete system that addresses all the claim limitations in a complete way on the basis of Baba’s vibration patterns, Fegley’s remote vibration system, and Kraft’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd incrementing outputs. This discussion may be regarded as supplemental and motivational to the modification previously discussed. The full scope of analysis should not be discounted, however. There is a clear prevalence in the art to arrive at the claimed invention when considered as a whole for reasons that are well established and prevalent in the field of endeavor to which the invention pertains.
With regard to claim 8 Baba, Oh, Fegley, and Kraft teach the electronic silent alarm apparatus of claim 2 additionally including: a connector (11 figure 1 - Baba) to hold a contact surface of the housing (1 figure 1 - Baba) of the body worn alarm apparatus in a direct contact against the skin of the user (paragraph 45 – wristwatch; figure 1 of Baba); whereby and said direct contact minimizing reduces sound emanating from said one or more buzzer (51 figure 2 - Baba).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 2007/0183269) in view of Oh (US 2009/0147628) in further view of Fegley (US 2003/0117272) and Kraft (US 2009/0231964) in further view of Raymann (US 2017/0357217).
With regard to claim 3 (depends from claim 1) Baba does not teach the claimed: wherein said time input interface presents a user with an option to input include a choice of a duration of time for sleeping; and in accordance to a user input of said duration of time for sleeping, said computer program instructions enable said one or more processors to determine determining said awakening time.
While claim 3 depends from claim 1 the rejection herein is being treated as dependent on the rejection/modification of claim 2. The modification expressly addresses the sleep features now brought into issue by the limitations of claim 3.
Raymann teaches providing an interface for inputting a sleep duration input – figure 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
625
883
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Raymann teaches a detailed method and system for adjusting and setting the sleep time, duration, and wakeup time according to the inputs and considering a myriad of factors – abstract, figures 12-14.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba’s system such that: wherein said time input interface presents a user with an option to input include a choice of a duration of time for sleeping; and in accordance to a user input of said duration of time for sleeping, said computer program instructions enable said one or more processors to determine determining said awakening time, as taught by Raymann. The reason for doing so would have been to allow the system to receive a desired sleep input and to consider a variety of data points and considerations to give the user the best possible sleep parameters the system can conceive of using the data provided, as taught by Raymann.
Claim 4 repeats the same limitations but varies in that it depends on claim 2. Thus claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons previously articulated.
With regard to claim 5 (depends from claim 1) Baba does not disclose the claimed additionally including:
- a sleeping level input interface presents a user with an option to input level of sleep of said user; in accordance to a user input of a level of sleep, said computer program instruction enables said one or more processors to adjust an intensity of waking output and based thereon communicate signals via said wireless receiver to said one or more buzzer to adjust one or both of said first number of vibrations and a duration of each thereof.
While claim 5 depends from claim 1 the rejection herein is being treated as dependent on the rejection/modification of claim 3 and 4 and by extension the intervening modification of claim 2.
Raymann’s entire inventive concept has to do with the quality of sleep – abstract, paragraph 83. Paragraph 83 discusses obtaining data on sleep quality from apps and sensors and the like. Paragraphs 84-88 discuss alert types such as opening and closing blinds and the obtaining of information of user interactions and sleep datapoints. “For example, it may be determined that the user 1002(1) is typically in bed within 20 minutes after powering off an entertainment device in a family room. And that during this 20 minutes, the user 1002(1) turns on and off lights in the bathroom, opens and closes a door to a child's bedroom, turns down the thermostat, and interacts with her user device 104(1) before retiring.” – paragraph 88.See figure 2:
PNG
media_image2.png
606
879
media_image2.png
Greyscale
See figure 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
626
867
media_image3.png
Greyscale
There is a clear overriding motivation to obtain datapoints, inputs from a user, and adjust the outputs responsive to the data input.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba’s system such that: a sleeping level input interface presents a user with an option to input level of sleep of said user; in accordance to a user input of a level of sleep, said computer program instruction enables said one or more processors to adjust an intensity of waking output and based thereon communicate signals via said wireless receiver to said one or more buzzer to adjust one or both of said first number of vibrations and a duration of each thereof, as taught by Raymann. In the context of a direct user input to set a desired REM sleep the motivation would have been to allow a user control over the intensity and duration of the sleep cycle as taught by Raymann. In the context of merely adjusting the alarm vibration output the motivation would have been to provide a contextually appropriate output according to the desired intensity as taught by Raymann and Kraft, without disturbing a neighboring user as taught by Fegley, using a variety of vibration patterns that a user can easily distinguish without observing a physical display, as taught by Baba.
With regard to claim 6 (depends from claim 5) Baba does not disclose the claimed: additionally including: in accordance with said user input of a level of sleep computer program instruction enables said one or more processors to adjust an intensity of waking output and based thereon communicate signals via said wireless receiver to said one or more buzzers to adjust adjusting one or both of: said second number of vibrations and a duration of each thereof; and said third number of vibrations and a duration of each thereof.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba’s system such that: in accordance with said user input of a level of sleep computer program instruction enables said one or more processors to adjust an intensity of waking output and based thereon communicate signals via said wireless receiver to said one or more buzzers to adjust adjusting one or both of: said second number of vibrations and a duration of each thereof; and said third number of vibrations and a duration of each thereof. In the context of a direct user input to set a desired REM sleep the motivation would have been to allow a user control over the intensity and duration of the sleep cycle as taught by Raymann. In the context of merely adjusting the alarm vibration output the motivation would have been to provide a contextually appropriate output according to the desired intensity as taught by Raymann and Kraft, without disturbing a neighboring user as taught by Fegley, using a variety of vibration patterns that a user can easily distinguish without observing a physical display, as taught by Baba.In regard to specifically adjusting the third number, the reason for doing so would have been to wake the user as taught by Fegley, using the best contextually appropriate data for the situation as taught by Fegley and Raymann.
With regard to claim 9 Baba, Oh, Fegley, Kraft, Raymann teach the electronic silent alarm apparatus of claim 4 additionally including: a connector (11 figure 1 - Baba) to hold a contact surface of the housing (1 figure 1 - Baba) of the body worn alarm apparatus in a direct contact against the skin of the user (paragraph 45 – wristwatch; figure 1 of Baba); whereby and said direct contact minimizing reduces sound emanating from said one or more buzzer (51 figure 2 - Baba).
With regard to claim 10 Baba, Oh, Fegley, Kraft, Raymann teach the electronic silent alarm apparatus of claim 6 additionally including: a connector (11 figure 1 - Baba) to hold a contact surface of the housing (1 figure 1 - Baba) of the body worn alarm apparatus in a direct contact against the skin of the user (paragraph 45 – wristwatch; figure 1 of Baba); whereby and said direct contact minimizing reduces sound emanating from said one or more buzzer (51 figure 2 - Baba).
With regard to claims 14, 15, and 16 (depends from claims 1, 4, and 9 respectively) Baba does not disclose the claimed:
in accordance with a received signal from a movement sensor located on said body worn alarm apparatus ceasing operation of said buzzer.
Raymond teaches “A motion sensor may detect motion of the device and provide, modify, cease, or otherwise affect a state, output, or input of the device or associated applications based at least in part on the motion. As non-limiting examples, a motion may be used to silence the device or acknowledge an alert generated by the device.” – paragraph 144.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba’s system such that: in accordance with a received signal from a movement sensor located on said body worn alarm apparatus ceasing operation of said buzzer, as taught by Raymond. The reason for doing so would have been to allow the user to control the system with motion, as taught by Raymond. Another reason for doing so would have been to automatically detect an awake state as corresponding to a substantial amount of physical movement and thus to deactivate the alarm automatically when the contextual data is indicative of such a state.
Claim 14 depends from claim 1 but is treated pursuant to the inventing modifications of claims 4, 9, because it provides a clear and complete discussion of the sleep contexts which provide a robust basis for the current modification being considered in regard to claim 14.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baba (US 2007/0183269) in view of Oh (US 2009/0147628) in further view of Fegley (US 2003/0117272) and Kraft (US 2009/0231964) in further view of Raymann (US 2017/0357217) in further view of Tsuruishi (US 3760583), Magnot (US 6014347), Paolo (US 3577876).
With regard to claims 11, 12, 13 (depends from claims 7, 8, and 9) Baba does not disclose the claimed:
a recess forming an opening in said contact surface of a housing of the body worn alarm apparatus; said opening forming a sealed cavity with said contact surface in said direct contact against the skin of the user; and said cavity for containing said sound emanating from said buzzer to minimize said sound emanating to said areas surrounding said housing through said opening.
The limitations in question are nothing more than the normal way a buzzer is embodied in a portable timepiece.
Tsuruishi teaches a buzzer 9 embodied in a watch case 1 with a peripheral recess – figure 1.
Magnot teaches a transducer with a recess on the wrist worn side – figure 1.
Paolo teaches an output in a recess in said contact surface of a housing of the body worn alarm apparatus – figure 3.
Before the earliest effective filling date it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to configure Baba’s system such that it includes: a recess forming an opening in said contact surface of a housing of the body worn alarm apparatus; said opening forming cavity with said contact surface in said direct contact against the skin of the user; and said cavity for containing said sound emanating from said one or more buzzers to minimize said sound emanating to said areas surrounding said housing and/or through the opening, as taught by Tsuruishi, Magnot, and Paolo.
Claim 11 depends from claim 7. Claim 11 is treated pursuant to the inventing modifications of claim 9, because it provides a clear and complete discussion of the sleep contexts which provide a robust basis for the current modification being considered in regard to this claim. In example, the sleep detail are not required to address the limitations of claim 7. However, the modification of intervening claim 2 addresses a clear motivation for providing reduced sound profile, i.e. to avoid disruption someone nearby. Thus the lens of obviousness is best treated within the full context of modification up until this point, not done in a piecemeal fashion even if the claim scope does not rigidly require each intervening feature.
Claim 12 depends from claim 8. Claim 12 is treated pursuant to the inventing modifications of claim 9, because it provides a clear and complete discussion of the sleep contexts which provide a robust basis for the current modification being considered in regard to this claim. The modification of intervening claims 4, 9 address a complete state of the art for providing reduced sound profile, i.e. to avoid disruption someone nearby and to provide a contextually appropriate feedback output including the level of intensity thereof. Thus the lens of obviousness is best treated within the full context of modification up until this point, not done in a piecemeal fashion even if the claim scope does not rigidly require each intervening feature.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN KAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-8931. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6.
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, Regis Betsch can be reached at 571-270-7101. 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.
/SEAN KAYES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2844