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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 2/16/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/16/26.
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, 5-7, 11-12 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heneghan et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,191,466 hereinafter “Heneghan”) in view of Rosenberg et al. (U.S. Pub. 2012/0221251 hereinafter “Rosenberg”).
Regarding claim 1, Heneghan teaches a heart rate tracking and bias detecting smart watch system (e.g. 100) comprising: a heart rate tracking and bias detecting smart watch housing (e.g. 102) configured to engage the wrist of a user (e.g. see Fig. 1A), wherein the heart rate tracking smart watch housing includes a heart rate tracker (e.g. Col. 3, ll. 15-25), an audio recorder (e.g. 508), a display (e.g. 506), a wireless communicator (e.g. 510), and a computing device including a processor (e.g. 502) and memory (e.g. 504) communicatively connected to the heart rate tracker (e.g. see Fig. 5), the audio recorder, the display, and the wireless communicator, wherein the computing device is configured to: receive an input activating the device using the display (e.g. Col. 4, ll. 21-23); record the heart rate data and the voice audio of the user in response to activation of the device (e.g. Col. 19, line 19 to Col. 20, line 5); transmit the recorded voice audio and the recorded heart rate data of the user to an external device application, wherein in response to the transmission, the external device application is configured to generate a report on the user (e.g. Col. 19, line 19 to Col. 20, line 5) and receive an input deactivating the device using the display in response to the complete transmission of the recorded audio and the heart rate data to the application (e.g. Col. 4, ll. 21-23). Heneghan discloses the claimed invention including determine the stress level of the user but fails to explicitly state that the system determines when a user is suitable for a particular job. However, Rosenberg teaches a similar stress analysis system that utilizes smartwatches for sensors that teaches that it is known to use stress as set forth in Paragraphs 20, 23, 96 and 98 to provide a analysis as to whether the user is suitable for a particular job. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Heneghan, with the job suitability analysis as taught by Rosenberg, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of analyzing the stress of the user to see if they are a fit for a particular job.
Regarding claim 5, meeting the limitations of claim 1 above, Heneghan further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to analyze the user’s heart rate data according to predetermined parameters including levels of heart rate activity and transmit the analyzed data to the application (e.g. See Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 6, meeting the limitations of claim 1 above, Heneghan further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to analyze the user’s heart rate data according to predetermined parameters including levels of heart rate activity and provide the analyzed data to the user using the display (e.g. See Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 7, meeting the limitations of claim 1 above, Heneghan further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to provide the heart rate data to the user using the display (e.g. See Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 11, meeting the limitations of claim 1 above, Heneghan further teaches wherein the application further is configured to generate a folder for a new user to store to store the recorded audio and the recorded heart rate data of the user to the ergonomic heart rate tracking system (e.g. Col. 18, line 50 to Col. 19, line 3; [using known storage means and structures well-known in the art such as folder based storage as is well known in computer operating systems including Windows, Mac and Linux]).
Regarding claim 12, meeting the limitations of claim 1 above, Heneghan further teaches wherein the application further comprises external memory storage to record data of each user, wherein the data includes heart rate data and audio files of the voice of each user (e.g. Col. 18, line 50 to Col. 19, line 3; [using known storage means and structures known in the art]).
Regarding claim 17, meeting the limitations of claim 1 above, Heneghan further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured with a location device to transmit the location of the heart rate smart watch device to the external device application (e.g. Col. 19, lines 16-25).
Regarding claim 18, meeting the limitations of claims 1 and 17 above, Heneghan further teaches wherein the computing device is further configured to retrieve the status of the user from the external device application and selectively record the heart rate and voice audio of the user dependent upon that status (e.g. Col. 19, lines 16-67).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heneghan in view of Rosenberg as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 11-12 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Lorden (U.S. Pub. 2018/0055456).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 14, Heneghan in view of Rosenberg discloses the claimed invention except for the system performing a heart rate data calibration. However, Lorden teaches that it is known to use heart rate calibration as set forth in Abstract, Paragraphs 4 and 30 to provide detection of irregularities based on sensed data to improve accuracy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Heneghan in view of Rosenberg, with Calibration as taught by Lorden, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of calibrating before use to provide detection of irregularities based on sensed data to improve accuracy.
Claim(s) 4, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heneghan in view of Rosenberg as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 11-12 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Derickson et al. (U.S. Pub. 2022/0108622 hereinafter “Derickson”).
Regarding claims 4, 9 and 15, Heneghan in view of Rosenberg discloses the claimed invention except for the system performing a bias simulation in a VR environment to determine stress under various conditions. However, Derickson teaches a similar work-related stress analysis that utilizes VR based bias simulation with smartwatch based sensors as set forth in Abstract, Paragraphs 5, 13, 18-19 and 106 to provide a means for determining if a person is able to perform a task and train them to be ready. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Heneghan in view of Rosenberg, with VR based stress bias simulations as taught by Derickson, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a means for determining if a person is able to perform a task and train them to be ready.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heneghan in view of Rosenberg as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 11-12 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Williams et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,803,859 hereinafter “Williams”).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Heneghan in view of Rosenberg discloses the claimed invention except for the system indicating that audio is being recorded and confirming transmission of the recordings. However, Williams teaches that it is known to use indicators for recording and transmission as set forth in Column 6, line 64 to Column 7, line 9 and Column 13, line 57 to Column 14, line 2 to provide a means for alerting the user to active recording and successful transmission. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Heneghan in view of Rosenberg, with indicators as taught by Williams, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using well-known methods to indicate that data is being recorded and successfully sent.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heneghan in view of Rosenberg as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 11-12 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Danson et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0046357 hereinafter “Danson”).
Regarding claim 13, Heneghan in view of Rosenberg discloses the claimed invention except for the system indicating how the audio is analyzed for stress. However, Danson teaches that it is known to use audio pitch as set forth in Paragraph 30 to provide a means for analyzing audios signals to determine stress levels. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Heneghan in view of Rosenberg, with pitch analysis as taught by Danson, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using well-known methods of pitch analysis to accurately determine stress.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heneghan in view of Rosenberg as applied to claims 1, 5-7, 11-12 and 17-18 above, and further in view of Lablans (U.S. Pat. 10,831,093 hereinafter “Lablans”).
Regarding claim 16, Heneghan in view of Rosenberg discloses the claimed invention except for the system indicating that system has a means for stealth mode. However, Lablans teaches that it is well-known to use stealth modes using the buttons built in to electronic devices as set forth in Column 7, line 62 to Column 8, line 3 to provide known means for turning off a device display using the functions that are already built into the device while the device is still active and sensing. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Heneghan in view of Rosenberg, with a screen darkness function as taught by Lablans, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using well-known means for turning off a device display using the functions (screen dark/sleep button) that are already built into the device while the device is still active and sensing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796