DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, line 1, "101" should be replaced by --10-- since there is no claim 101.
Claim 17 is dependent upon objected claim 16.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, 9-10, 15, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vallstrom (US 2004/0192352 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Vallstrom discloses a tracking system comprising:
a first monitor device comprising: a movement determination circuit configured to generate an insignificant movement indication when the first monitor is moving less than a defined amount (10E, Fig. 1) [where there is nothing in the claim requiring the first monitor device to be external to the second monitor device, separate from the second monitor device, disconnected from the second monitor device, or to not be a subcomponent of the second monitor device];
a second monitor device (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a location determination circuit configured to determine a location of the second monitor device (10F, Fig. 1; ¶14) [where in ¶14 the GPS receiver/location determination circuit may be included in the second monitor device];
a transmitting circuit (10B, Fig, 1; ¶29, line 21); and
a controller circuit (10A, Fig. 1; ¶29, line 20) configured to:
transmit the location to a receiving device using the transmitting circuit (¶11; ¶43);
after transmitting the location to the receiving device, receive the insignificant movement indication from the first monitor device (¶13; ¶44) [in the embodiment where only the GPS circuitry is turned off is selected (¶13, line 5)];
based at least in part upon the insignificant movement indication: reduce power consumption of the location determination circuit (¶13; ¶44); and re-transmit the location to the receiving device using the transmitting circuit (¶13).
In regard to claim 10, Vallstrom discloses a method for tracking an individual comprising:
receiving a location of a first monitor device from a location determination circuit in the first monitor device (10F, Fig. 1; ¶14) [where in ¶14 the GPS receiver/location determination circuit may be included in the second monitor device];
transmitting the location to a receiving device (10B, Fig, 1; ¶11; ¶29, line 21; ¶43);
after transmitting the location, receiving an insignificant movement indication from a movement determination circuit in a second monitor device (¶13; ¶44) [in the embodiment where only the GPS circuitry is turned off is selected (¶13, line 5)];
based at least in part upon the insignificant movement indication: reducing power consumption of the location determination circuit (¶13; ¶44); and re-transmitting the location to the receiving device (¶13) [where the first monitor device is 10, Fig. 1 and the second monitor device is 10E, Fig. 1, where there is nothing in the claim requiring the first monitor device to be external to the second monitor device, separate from the second monitor device, disconnected from the second monitor device, or to not be a subcomponent of the second monitor device].
In regard to claim 19, Vallstrom discloses a tracking system comprising:
a first monitor device comprising: a movement determination circuit configured to generate an insignificant movement indication when the first monitor is moving less than a defined amount (10E, Fig. 1) [where there is nothing in the claim requiring the first monitor device to be external to the second monitor device, separate from the second monitor device, disconnected from the second monitor device, or to not be a subcomponent of the second monitor device];
a second monitor device (10, Fig. 1) comprising:
a location determination circuit configured to determine a location of the second monitor device (10F, Fig. 1; ¶14) [where in ¶14 the GPS receiver/location determination circuit may be included in the second monitor device];
a transmitting circuit (10B, Fig, 1; ¶29, line 21); and
a processor (10A, Fig. 1; ¶29, line 20) and a computer readable medium communicatively coupled to the processor (10G, Fig. 1) and including instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
transmit the location to a receiving device using the transmitting circuit (¶11; ¶43);
after transmitting the location to the receiving device, receive the insignificant movement indication from the first monitor device (¶13; ¶44) [in the embodiment where only the GPS circuitry is turned off is selected (¶13, line 5)];
based at least in part upon the insignificant movement indication: reduce power consumption of the location determination circuit (¶13; ¶44); and re-transmit the location to the receiving device using the transmitting circuit (¶13).
In regard to claims 6 and 15, Vallstrom further discloses the movement determination circuit comprises: an accelerometer (¶29, lines 26-27).
In regard to claims 9 and 18, Vallstrom further discloses the location determination circuit is selected from a group consisting of: a satellite-based position circuit (10F, Fig. 1); and a WiFi-based position circuit.
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) 2, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallstrom, as applied to claims 1 and 10, above, and further in view of Vasavada (US 2021/0333759 A1).
In regard to claim 2, Vallstrom fails to disclose the first monitor device is a user attached monitor device and the second monitor device is a user detached monitor device.
Vasavada teaches:
a first monitor device (112, Fig. 1B; 312, Fig. 3) with a movement determination circuit (342, Fig. 3) is a user attached monitor device (watch band 112, Fig. 1A and 1B), and
a second monitor device (104, Fig. 1B; 304, Fig. 3) with a location determination circuit (316, Fig. 3), a transmitting circuit (318, Fig. 3), and a controller circuit (326, Fig. 3) is a user detached monitor device (watch body 104, Fig. 1A and 1B) [where the watch body can be used detached from the watch band (¶49; ¶62)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save power in the watch body device of Vasavada by using the movement determination circuit in the watch band to determine when the user has insignificant movement and powering down the location determination circuit in the watch body.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the battery of the watch band will last longer since it will expend less power.
In regard to claim 12, Vallstrom fails to disclose the first monitor device is a user detached monitor device and the second monitor device is a user attached monitor device.
Vasavada teaches:
a first monitor device (104, Fig. 1B; 304, Fig. 3) with a location determination circuit (316, Fig. 3), a transmitting circuit (318, Fig. 3), and a controller circuit (326, Fig. 3) is a user detached monitor device (watch body 104, Fig. 1A and 1B) [where the watch body can be used detached from the watch band (¶49; ¶62)]; and
a second monitor device (112, Fig. 1B; 312, Fig. 3) with a movement determination circuit (342, Fig. 3) is a user attached monitor device (watch band 112, Fig. 1A and 1B).
.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save power in the watch body device of Vasavada by using the movement determination circuit in the watch band to determine when the user has insignificant movement and powering down the location determination circuit in the watch body.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the battery of the watch band will last longer since it will expend less power.
In regard to claim 14, Vasavada further teaches the user detached monitor device is a cellular communication enabled device associated with a monitored individual (316 in 304, Fig. 3), and wherein the user attached monitor device is configured for attachment to the monitored individual (212, Fig. 1A, 1B, and 2).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallstrom and Vasavada, as applied to claim 12, above, and further in view of Williams (US 2023/0179955 A1).
Vasavada further discloses the method of tracking being used in an augmented-reality environment (¶33; ¶46).
Vallstrom and Vasavada fail to disclose the user attached monitor device further comprises a tamper detection circuit configured to detect removal of the user attached monitor device from the individual.
Williams teaches a user attached monitor device further comprises a tamper detection circuit configured to detect removal of the user attached monitor device from the individual (Fig. 4 (Cont.)/Sheet 10); ¶85; ¶104; ¶313) [where one way to detect tampering is by determine if no movement occurs for X hours, i.e., using the movement detector].
Williams further teaches the method of tracking being used in an augmented-reality environment, e.g., to obstruct the user from viewing things that may trigger/tempt the user (¶96; ¶126; ¶147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to help a user to avoid being triggered/tempted, whether by modifying an augmented-reality device that the user already owns, or by providing a known augmented-reality device to implement the method of Williams. Additionally, tamper detection will help prevent the user from performing an undesired action by alerting authorities to intercede with the user.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the user is aided in being triggered/tempted and with not performing an undesired action.
Claim(s) 3, 5, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallstrom, as applied to claims 1 and 10, above, and further in view of Woodman (US 2019/0369402 A1).
In regard to claim 3, Vallstrom further discloses that a cellular phone comprises a movement determination circuit (10A, Fig. 1).
Vallstrom fails to disclose the first monitor device is a user detached monitor device and the second monitor device is a user attached monitor device.
Woodman teaches:
a first monitor device is a user detached monitor device (¶52-53) [where a cellular phone is a user detached device]; and
a second monitor device (100, Fig. 1; 1000, Fig. 10) with a location determination circuit (1012, Fig. 10; ¶91), a transmitting circuit (1018, Fig. 10; ¶104-105; ¶118) [where GSM/cellular communication is encompassed], and a controller circuit (1002, Fig. 10) is a user attached monitor device (100, Fig. 1; 1000, Fig. 10) [where in one embodiment the second monitor device may not have an IMU/accelerometer (¶91)].
In the combination, the movement determination circuit in the cellular phone is used to determine when the user of the wearable imaging device and cellular phone is stationary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save power in the wearable imaging device of Woodman by using the movement determination circuit in the cellular phone to determine when the user has insignificant movement and powering down the location determination circuit in the wearable imaging device.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the battery of the wearable imaging device will last longer since it will expend less power.
In regard to claim 5, Woodman further teaches the user detached monitor device is a cellular communication enabled device associated with a monitored individual (1018, Fig. 10; ¶104-105; ¶118) [where GSM/cellular communication is encompassed], and wherein the user attached monitor device is configured for attachment to the monitored individual (108, 110, Fig. 1).
In regard to claim 11, Vallstrom further discloses that a cellular phone comprises a movement determination circuit (10A, Fig. 1).
Vallstrom fails to disclose the first monitor device is a user attached monitor device and the second monitor device is a user detached monitor device.
Woodman teaches:
a first monitor device (100, Fig. 1; 1000, Fig. 10) with a location determination circuit (1012, Fig. 10; ¶91), a transmitting circuit (1018, Fig. 10; ¶104-105; ¶118) [where GSM/cellular communication is encompassed], and a controller circuit (1002, Fig. 10) is a user attached monitor device (100, Fig. 1; 1000, Fig. 10) [where in one embodiment the second monitor device may not have an IMU/accelerometer (¶91); and
a second monitor device is a user detached monitor device (¶52-53) [where a cellular phone is a user detached device].
In the combination, the movement determination circuit in the cellular phone is used to determine when the user of the wearable imaging device and cellular phone is stationary.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the references with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save power in the wearable imaging device of Woodman by using the movement determination circuit in the cellular phone to determine when the user has insignificant movement and powering down the location determination circuit in the wearable imaging device.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the battery of the wearable imaging device will last longer since it will expend less power.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallstrom and Woodman, as applied to claim 3, above, and further in view of Williams (US 2023/0179955 A1).
Woodman further discloses the method of tracking being used in an augmented-reality environment (¶27).
Vallstrom and Woodman fail to disclose the user attached monitor device further comprises a tamper detection circuit configured to detect removal of the user attached monitor device from the individual.
Williams teaches a user attached monitor device further comprises a tamper detection circuit configured to detect removal of the user attached monitor device from the individual (Fig. 4 (Cont.)/Sheet 10); ¶85; ¶104; ¶313) [where one way to detect tampering is by determine if no movement occurs for X hours, i.e., using the movement detector].
Williams further teaches the method of tracking being used in an augmented-reality environment, e.g., to obstruct the user from viewing things that may trigger/tempt the user (¶96; ¶126; ¶147).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to help a user to avoid being triggered/tempted, whether by modifying an augmented-reality device that the user already owns, or by providing a known augmented-reality device to implement the method of Williams. Additionally, tamper detection will help prevent the user from performing an undesired action by alerting authorities to intercede with the user.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the user is aided in being triggered/tempted and with not performing an undesired action.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vallstrom, as applied to claims 1 and 10, above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 106324630 B).
In regard to claim 7, Vallstrom further discloses the insignificant movement indication indicates that the first monitor device is stationary in a time period (¶44).
Vallstrom fails to disclose that being stationary is determined based on the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in the time period.
Zhang teaches being stationary is determined based on the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in a time period (p. 15, ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine when the first monitor device is stationary.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the system determines when the first monitor device is stationary.
In the combination, the insignificant movement indication indicates that the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in a time period.
In regard to claim 8, Zhang further teaches the defined distance is less than fifty feet (p. 15, ¶6) [where five meters is less than fifty feet].
In regard to claim 16, Vallstrom further discloses the insignificant movement indication indicates that the first monitor device is stationary in a time period (¶44).
Vallstrom fails to disclose that being stationary is determined based on the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in the time period.
Zhang teaches being stationary is determined based on the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in a time period (p. 15, ¶6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include this feature into the combination with a reasonable expectation of success in order to determine when the first monitor device is stationary.
Additionally, this is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, the predictable result being that the system determines when the first monitor device is stationary.
In the combination, the insignificant movement indication indicates that the first monitor device has moved less than a defined distance in a time period.
In regard to claim 17, Zhang further teaches the defined distance is less than fifty feet (p. 15, ¶6) [where five meters is less than fifty feet].
The following reference(s) is/are also found relevant:
Syrjarinne (US 2005/0113124 A1), which teaches a first monitor device comprising: a movement determination circuit configured to generate an insignificant movement indication when the first monitor is moving less than a defined amount (14, Fig. 1) [where there is nothing in the claim requiring the first monitor device to be external to the second monitor device, separate from the second monitor device, disconnected from the second monitor device, or to not be a subcomponent of the second monitor device]; and a second monitor device (10, Fig. 1) comprising: a location determination circuit configured to determine a location of the second monitor device (12, Fig. 1)]; a transmitting circuit (11, Fig. 1); and a controller circuit (15, Fig. 1) configured to, based at least in part upon an insignificant movement indication: reduce power consumption of the location determination circuit (21-22, Fig. 2)
Bradley (US 2018/0279086 A1), which teaches a first monitor device with a movement determination circuit (30, 31, Fig. 1; ¶41) is a user attached monitor device (11, 12, Fig. 1) and the second monitor device with a location determination circuit (¶35) [where it is well known for a mobile telephone to have a location determination circuit] is a user detached monitor device (10, Fig. 1)
Buck (US 2020/0359172 A1), which teaches the first monitor device with a movement determination circuit (111, Fig. 1b) is a user detached monitor device (Fig. 1b) and the second monitor device with a location determination circuit (162, Fig. 1c) is a user attached monitor device (Fig. 1c) [where the Motion/Proximity Sensor 152 in Fig. 1c may be only implemented as a sensor to sense proximity (¶48, particularly the "or" at the end of p. 7, line 1)].
Applicant is encouraged to consider these documents in formulating their response (if one is required) to this Office Action, in order to expedite prosecution of this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fred H. Mull whose telephone number is 571-272-6975. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from approximately 9-5:30 Eastern Time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Resha Desai, can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
Fred H. Mull
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/F. H. M./
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648