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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
-Fig. 1 includes elements 111 and 134 which are not found within the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “the person” in lines 4 and 10. Examiner recommends amending to –the resting person—
-Claim 1 recites “the set available stimuli” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –the set of the available stimuli—
-Claim 5 recites “the activation method” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –wherein the activation method—
-Claims 5 and 15 recite “multiple abrupt” in line 7. Examiner recommends amending to –and multiple abrupt—or –or multiple abrupt—
-Claim 6 recites “the person” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –the resting person—
-Claim 7 recites “the person” in lines 2 and 4-5. Examiner recommends amending to –the resting person—
-Claim 10 recites “the person to be awakened” in lines 3-4. Examiner recommends amending to –the resting person—
-Claim 10 recites “the trigger in line 6. Examiner recommends amending to –the trigger signal—
-Claim 11 recites “the available stimuli” in line 7. Examiner recommends amending to –the available waking stimuli—
-Claim 11 recites “set available stimuli to use” in line 8. Examiner recommends amending to –set of the available waking stimuli to use—
-Claim 15 recites “the method of selectively activating” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –the step of selectively activating—
-Claim 20 recites “the person to be awakened” in lines 3-4. Examiner recommends amending to –the person—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-Claim 1 recites “a processing system” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to “receive stimuli configuration data and sleep data and determine…to use.” According to the specification the controller includes one or more processors and computer-readable storage devices or media [0023] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 2 recites “one or more sensors” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to communicate with the processing system and supply sleep state data to the processing system. According to the specification the one or more sensors includes smart watch, video sensor, EEG sensor, EOG sensor, inertial sensors, surface load sensors, ECG sensors [0019] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 9 recites “wearable user interface” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to supply the trigger signal. According to the specification the user interface includes a smart watch [0020] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 9 recites “second processing system” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to supply the trigger signal. According to the specification the user interface includes an avionic system [0027] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 9 recites “communication device” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to supply the trigger signal. According to the specification the communication device includes a phone, uplink call/message from the ground, or a side-link call/message from another aircraft [0027] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 recites “these data” in line 3. It is unclear what data this limitation is referring to. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 1 recites “the available stimuli” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 1 recites “all available waking stimuli available for use” in lines 8. It is unclear what the additional use of the term available adds to the requirements of the claim. Further clarification should be provided or the additional text deleted. It is also unclear what the term all encompasses. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this means of all the stimulus options available, all stimulus options or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 3 recites “one or more of a watch…inertial sensors” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is stating one of each of the limitations (e.g. one watch or one camera, etc.) or all of the limitations (e.g. one watch and one camera, etc.) or a separate embodiment are required by the claim.
-Claim 4 recites “one or more of visual…vibrational stimuli” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this limitation requires one of the listed stimuli or all of the listed stimuli.
-Claim 5 recites “the activation method includes…at a second predetermined intensity” in lines 4-7. It is unclear whether this limitation requires all subsequent steps listed or one of the listed steps.
-Claim 6 recites “an effectiveness thereof” in line 3. It is unclear what is required per this limitation. Effective could mean various things to one of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, further clarification should be provided to define the requirements of this limitation.
-Claim 7 recites “set of available stimuli” in line 5. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the set of available stimuli originally referenced in claim 1, line 4. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 9 recites “one or more of wearable user interface…a communication device” in lines 1-4. It is unclear whether this limitation requires one of the listed interface/device/systems or all of the listed entities.
-Claim 10 recites “processing system is further coupled to receive” in line 2. It is unclear what this limitation is requiring in terms of the processing system being coupled. Further clarification should be provided to identify what the system is coupled to, or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 11 recites “all available waking stimuli available for use” in line 3. It is unclear what the additional use of the term available adds to the requirements of the claim. Further clarification should be provided or the additional text deleted. It is also unclear what the term all encompasses. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this means of all the stimulus options available, all stimulus options or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 13 recites “one or more of a watch, a camera, a wearable textile” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is stating one of each of the limitations (e.g. one watch or one camera, etc.) or all of the limitations (e.g. one watch and one camera, etc.) or a separate embodiment are required by the claim.
-Claim 14 recites “one or more of visual…vibrational stimuli” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this limitation requires one of the listed stimuli or all of the listed stimuli.
-Claim 15 recites “the method of selectively activating…predetermined intensity” in lines 4-8. It is unclear whether this limitation requires all subsequent steps listed or one of the listed steps.
-Claim 15 recites “the activated stimuli” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 16 recites “an effectiveness thereof” in line 3. It is unclear what is required per this limitation. Effective could mean various things to one of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, further clarification should be provided to define the requirements of this limitation.
-Claim 16 recites “each of set of available stimuli” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the set of stimuli originally recited in claim 11, line 7. Should possibly read –each of the set of available stimuli—
-Claim 17 recites “the response of the person” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 17 recites “each of set of available stimuli” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the set of stimuli originally recited in claim 11, line 7. Should possibly read –each of the set of available stimuli—
-Claim 19 recites “one or more of: a signal supplied from a wearable user interface…a communication device” in lines 1-4. It is unclear whether this limitation requires one signal supplied from the listed interface/device/systems or all of the listed entities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 9 recites “a wearable user interface disposed on a second person” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –a wearable user interface configured to be disposed on a second person—
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recites(s) a series of mental processes used to determine stimulation data based on availability and sequence of activation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processing system is recited as performing the generic computer function of determining available stimuli and sequences used to activate these stimuli. Further, mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic processing system does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements recited in claims 1-20 do not apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.
An analysis of the claims is shown below:
Step 1: Claims 1-10, are directed towards a system, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 11-20 are directed towards a method which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 1 recites limitations that are directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites determine set of available stimuli and a sequence of activation of the set of available stimuli to use. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. It would be practically performable in a human’s mind, or with pen and paper, to determine a set of available stimuli and activation sequence of a device used to awaken a resting person. Analyzing information and making a determination based on information is akin to an observation, evaluation or judgement that defines the mental process grouping. Independent claims 1 and 11 do not require use of the stimuli or any modification made to the system aside from indicating selectively activating the stimuli in the determined sequence, however, this could equate to making decisions and selections on parameters regarding the stimuli. Thus claims 1 and 11 are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claims 1-20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1-20 recite the following additional elements:
-processing system (claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20)
-one or more sensors (claim 2, 3, 12, 13)
-watch (claim 3, 13)
-camera (claim 3, 13)
-wearable textile (claim 3, 13)
-EEG sensors (claim 3)
-EOG sensors (claim 3)
-inertial sensors (claim 3)
-memory (claim 7)
-wearable user interface (claim 9, 19)
-second processing system (claim 9, 19)
-communication device (claim 9, 19)
The processing system, one or more sensors, watch, camera, wearable textile, EEG sensors, EOG sensors, inertial sensors, memory, wearable user interface, second processing system, communication device are generically recited at a high level of generality. Further, mere instructions or programs to apply judicial exception using a generic processing system independently does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Most notably, none of the additional elements recited in these claims apply or use the judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. While the bodies of these claims discuss aspects related to waking an individual during rest there is no claim limitation the recites a particular treatment method.
Thus claims 1-20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: When considered individually and in combination, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the selectively activating set of available stimuli in the determined sequence, supplying sleep data to the processing system, determining activation methods, increasing intensity of activated stimuli, monitoring person’s response, determine cognitive states of the on-duty person and generate triggers in response to the determined cognitive state are also generically recited at a high level of generality. Mere determination or execution or control of a processing system of a stimulation device to apply a judicial exception using a generic activation of stimulating a resting person does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the processes and steps can be considered nonfunctional descriptive material because there are no elements that show how the activation of stimuli interacts with the processing system.
In reconsidering the additional elements of the processing system and methods, the additional elements were determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional based on the following evidence:
-Nikolic et al. [U.S. 20210034053] discloses a processing system [Abstract; “data processor”], one or more sensors [0004; “biometric sensors”], watch and wearable textile [0040; “wrist watch, chest strap”], EEG sensors [0041], EOG sensors [0041], inertial sensors [0033; “inertial navigation system”], memory [0027; “computer memory”], wearable user interface [0040; “wrist watch, chest strap”], second processing system [0030; “automatic control processor”], communication device [0033; “communication link”] in reference to a pilot fatigue monitoring system. Therefore, these elements are demonstrated to be generic, well understood components that are commonly recited in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6-12, 14, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Arbonneau (U.S. 20190352008).
Regarding Claim 1, D’Arbonneau teaches a system for waking a resting person [Abstract], comprising: a processing system configured to receive stimuli configuration data and sleep state data [Abstract] and configured, upon receipt of these data, to: determine (i) a set of the available stimuli to use to awaken the person [0013] and [0019]—discusses wakeup apparatus and detecting when first and second wakeup apparatus are needed given the situation and (ii) a sequence of activation of the set available stimuli to use [0019; “the processing unit being configured to activate at least a first wakeup apparatus from among the plurality of wakeup apparatuses in a gentle wakeup mode, and to activate at least a second wakeup apparatus, not activated during the gentle wakeup mode, in an emergency wakeup mode.”]; and selectively activate the set of available stimuli in the determined sequence of activation [0022; “the processing unit being configured to create activation information of the detection means to the attention of at least one other active crew member, when the state of consciousness detected by the detection means is the awake state;”], wherein: the stimuli configuration data is indicative of all available waking stimuli available for use , and the sleep state data is indicative of a current sleep state of the person [0030; activating the wakeup apparatus of the wakeup device, when at least one predetermined condition for waking up the resting crew member on current parameters of the aircraft and/or on a parameter representative of a state of consciousness of at least one other active crew member is satisfied.”]
Regarding Claim 2, D’Arbonneau teaches further comprising: one or more sensors in operable communication with the processing system and configured to supply the sleep state data to the processing system [0062-0063]—discusses detecting state of consciousness of the active and resting crew members.
Regarding Claim 4, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein the available waking stimuli include one or more of visual, aural, and vibrational stimuli [0110]—describes visual stimuli. This claim is interpreted to only require one of the listed limitations.
Regarding Claim 6, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein the processing system is further configured, in response to the sleep state data, to monitor a response of the person to each of the set of available stimuli that is activated to determine an effectiveness thereof [0067]—reference to acknowledgement that the resting crew member is awake and [0158]—reference to acknowledgement means paired with data related to monitoring a state of consciousness of the resting crew member.
Regarding Claim 7, D’Arbonneau teaches further comprising: memory having user profile data stored therein that is associated with the person [0016]—reference to memory storing history of parameters representative of state of consciousness of active crew members, wherein the processing system is in operable communication with the memory [0016] and is further configured to selectively update the user profile data to reflect the response of the person to each set of available stimuli that is activated [0016; “a history of current parameters stored in the memory and/or a history of the parameter representative of the state of consciousness of said at least one other active crew member.”]
Regarding Claim 8, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein the processing system is further coupled to receive a trigger signal and is configured, upon receipt of the trigger signal, to selectively activate the set of available stimuli in the determined sequence of activation [0079] and [0083]—describes the processing unit activating the wakeup apparatus and therefore, signal that the resting crew member needs to wake up.
Regarding Claim 9, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein the trigger signal is supplied from one or more of: a wearable user interface disposed on a second person; a second processing system; and a communication device [0124-0125]—includes situation information communicated via module, 40, that includes messages for implementing urgent action.
Regarding Claim 10, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein: the processing system is further coupled to receive on-duty person state data [0008], the on-duty person state data indicative of a cognitive state of an on-duty person who is not the person to be awakened [0095]; and the processing system is configured, upon receipt of the on-duty person state data, to determine the cognitive state of the on-duty person [0016] and selectively generate the trigger in response to the determined cognitive state of the on-duty person [0016] and [0022]—discloses upon detecting state of consciousness of the active crew member, creating activation information of the detection means if the active crew member is in an awake state which is interpreted to be the determined cognitive state.
Regarding Claim 11, D’Arbonneau teaches a method of waking a person [Abstract], comprising the steps of: receiving, in a processing system [Abstract], stimuli configuration data [Abstract], the stimuli configuration data indicative of all available waking stimuli available for use [0013] and [0019]; receiving, in the processing system, sleep state data, the sleep state data indicative of a current sleep state of the person [0030; activating the wakeup apparatus of the wakeup device, when at least one predetermined condition for waking up the resting crew member on current parameters of the aircraft and/or on a parameter representative of a state of consciousness of at least one other active crew member is satisfied.”]; processing, in the processing system, the stimuli configuration data and the sleep state data to determine (i) a set of the available stimuli to use to awaken the person [0013] and [0019]—discusses wakeup apparatus and detecting when first and second wakeup apparatus are needed given the situation and (ii) a sequence of activation of the set available stimuli to use [0019; “the processing unit being configured to activate at least a first wakeup apparatus from among the plurality of wakeup apparatuses in a gentle wakeup mode, and to activate at least a second wakeup apparatus, not activated during the gentle wakeup mode, in an emergency wakeup mode.”]; and selectively activating, via the processing system, the set of available stimuli in the determined sequence of activation [0022; “the processing unit being configured to create activation information of the detection means to the attention of at least one other active crew member, when the state of consciousness detected by the detection means is the awake state;”].
Regarding Claim 12, D’Arbonneau teaches further comprising: supplying the sleep state data to the processing system from one or more sensors [0062-0063]—discusses detecting state of consciousness of the active and resting crew members.
Regarding Claim 14, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein the available waking stimuli include one or more of visual, aural, and vibrational stimuli [0110]—describes visual stimuli. This claim is interpreted to only require one of the listed limitations.
Regarding Claim 16, D’Arbonneau teaches further comprising: monitoring, in the processing system, for a response of the person to each of set of available stimuli that is activated to determine an effectiveness thereof [0067]—reference to acknowledgement that the resting crew member is awake and [0158]—reference to acknowledgement means paired with data related to monitoring a state of consciousness of the resting crew member.
Regarding Claim 17, D’Arbonneau teaches further comprising: selectively updating, via the processing system, user profile data associated with the person to reflect the response of the person to each of set of available stimuli that is activated [0016]—reference to memory storing history of parameters representative of state of consciousness of active crew members, [0016; “a history of current parameters stored in the memory and/or a history of the parameter representative of the state of consciousness of said at least one other active crew member.”] and [0124]—discusses regularly updating situation information at regular time intervals.
Regarding Claim 18, D’Arbonneau teaches further comprising: generating, in the processing system, a trigger that causes the processing system to selectively activate the set of available stimuli in the determined sequence of activation [0079] and [0083]—describes the processing unit activating the wakeup apparatus and therefore, signal that the resting crew member needs to wake up.
Regarding Claim 19, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein the trigger is generated in response to one or more of: a signal supplied from a wearable user interface disposed on a second person; a signal supplied from a second processing system; and a signal supplied from a communication device [0124-0125]—includes situation information communicated via module, 40, that includes messages for implementing urgent action.
Regarding Claim 20, D’Arbonneau teaches further comprising: receiving, in the processing system, on-duty person state data [0008], the on-duty person state data representative of a cognitive state of an on-duty person who is not the person to be awakened [0095]; processing, in the processing system, the on-duty person state data to determine the cognitive state of the on-duty person; and selectively generating the trigger in response to determining the cognitive state of the on-duty person [0016] and [0022]—discloses upon detecting state of consciousness of the active crew member, creating activation information of the detection means if the active crew member is in an awake state which is interpreted to be the determined cognitive state.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Arbonneau (U.S. 20190352008) in view of Jaddu (WO 2022168000).
Regarding Claim 3, D’Arbonneau is silent on wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of a watch, a camera, a wearable textile, one or more electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors, one or more electrooculogram (EOG) sensors, and one or more inertial sensors. Jaddu teaches wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of a watch, a camera, a wearable textile [Abstract]—watch and camera are not interpreted to be required by the claim, one or more electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors [00015]—reference to biosensor including EEG, one or more electrooculogram (EOG) sensors [00039]—reference to using electrooculogram technologies, and one or more inertial sensors [00048]—reference to inertial motion units of operator monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include specific sensor technologies as taught by Jaddu to monitor conditions of the operator and aircraft as suggested by D’Arbonneau, as D’Arbonneau discusses monitoring physiological conditions of the operator and acceleration and altitude of the aircraft [0059 and 0062] and with Jaddu because Jaddu teaches receiving operator positional and biosignals to determine operator alertness status [00015].
Regarding Claim 13, D’Arbonneau is silent on wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of a watch, a camera, a wearable textile. Jaddu teaches wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of a watch, a camera, a wearable textile [Abstract]—watch and camera are not interpreted to be required by the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include specific sensor technologies as taught by Jaddu to monitor conditions of the operator and aircraft as suggested by D’Arbonneau, as D’Arbonneau discusses monitoring physiological conditions of the operator and acceleration and altitude of the aircraft [0059 and 0062] and with Jaddu because Jaddu teaches receiving operator positional and biosignals to determine operator alertness status [00015].
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Arbonneau (U.S. 20190352008) in view of Bremer (EP 3826281).
Regarding Claim 5, D’Arbonneau is silent on wherein: the processing system is further configured to determine an activation method for selectively activating the set of available stimuli; and the activation method includes a gradual increase in an intensity of the activated stimuli, an abrupt activation at a first predetermined intensity, an abrupt activation at a second predetermined intensity that is greater in magnitude than the first predetermined intensity, multiple abrupt activations at a second predetermined intensity. Bremer teaches wherein: the processing system is further configured to determine an activation method for selectively activating the set of available stimuli [Abstract; “a processor is used for determining a stimulus intensity curve for the alarm”]; and the activation method includes a gradual increase in an intensity of the activated stimuli [0062], an abrupt activation at a first predetermined intensity [0062], an abrupt activation at a second predetermined intensity that is greater in magnitude than the first predetermined intensity, multiple abrupt activations at a second predetermined intensity [0062; “There may for example be a step increase in intensity at the end of the curve to ensure a more reliable wake-up at the desired wake-up time, if the user has not already woken up (and turned off the alarm) by then.”]—where step increases are interpreted to be intensity increases in an abrupt fashion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary stimulation intensities applies as taught by Bremer to activate the alarm at varying intensities as suggested by D’Arbonneau, as D’Arbonneau discusses varying vibrations, sound and light as the alarm is activated [0162, 0170, 0058] and with Bremer because Bremer teaches the described process as ensuring a more reliable wake-up at the desired wake-up time [0062].
Regarding Claim 15, D’Arbonneau is silent on further comprising: determining, in the processing system, a method of selectively activating the set of available stimuli, wherein the method of selectively activating the set of available stimuli includes a gradual increase in an intensity of the activated stimuli, an abrupt activation at a first predetermined intensity, an abrupt activation at a second predetermined intensity that is greater in magnitude than the first predetermined intensity, multiple abrupt activations at a second predetermined intensity. Bremer teaches further comprising: determining, in the processing system, a method of selectively activating the set of available stimuli [Abstract; “a processor is used for determining a stimulus intensity curve for the alarm”], wherein the method of selectively activating the set of available stimuli includes a gradual increase in an intensity of the activated stimuli [0062], an abrupt activation at a first predetermined intensity [0062], an abrupt activation at a second predetermined intensity that is greater in magnitude than the first predetermined intensity, multiple abrupt activations at a second predetermined intensity [0062; “There may for example be a step increase in intensity at the end of the curve to ensure a more reliable wake-up at the desired wake-up time, if the user has not already woken up (and turned off the alarm) by then.”]—where step increases are interpreted to be intensity increases in an abrupt fashion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary stimulation intensities applies as taught by Bremer to activate the alarm at varying intensities as suggested by D’Arbonneau, as D’Arbonneau discusses varying vibrations, sound and light as the alarm is activated [0162, 0170, 0058] and with Bremer because Bremer teaches the described process as ensuring a more reliable wake-up at the desired wake-up time [0062].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Christophe (U.S. 20090109038)-awakening system for waking a pilot
-Moravek (U.S. 20180225945)-transfer system for off-duty operator -Rangan (U.S. 20200290740)-air flight monitoring system with multiple sensors
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791