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 .
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 – 6, 8 – 16 and 17 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ahmed et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0367187).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ahmed discloses a system and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by a system including one or more sensors (e.g. 602), one or more input devices (e.g. ¶ 214), one or more output devices (e.g. ¶ 214), memory (e.g. 610), and one or more processors (e.g. 608), causes the system to perform a method, the method comprising:
sensing, using the one or more sensors, physiological data of a user of the system (e.g. ¶ 37) and a current location of the system (e.g. ¶ 77 and 226); in accordance with a calculation based on the physiological data and the current location of the system indicating that a likelihood of the user of the system experiencing a health event is above a threshold value (e.g. ¶ 96 – 100);
outputting, using the one or more output devices, a request for user feedback indicating whether or not the health event occurred;
receiving, via the one or more input devices, the user feedback indicating whether or not the health event occurred (e.g. ¶ 149); and
updating the calculation for future use based on the user feedback (e.g. ¶ 149).
Regarding claims 2 and 12¸Ahmend discloses sensing, using one or more second sensors, environmental data of a physical environment of the system, wherein the calculation is further based on the environmental data (e.g. ¶ 62).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ahmed discloses the calculation is based on an association of the current location of the system with the health event (e.g. ¶ 77 and 226).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Ahmed discloses the calculation is based on an association of the current location of the system and a current time with the health event (e.g. ¶ 62, 77).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Ahmed discloses the calculation is based on health data associated with the user of the system (e.g. ¶ 62).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Ahmed discloses performing the calculation with the system without performing the calculation with another system (e.g. ABSTRACT, Fig. 1; the calculations are done by the processor on board the watch. The sensing is also done by the watch. Therefore, there is not a second system used for performing the calculations).
Regarding claims 8, 9, 18, and 19, Ahmed discloses using at continuous user feedback to update the calculation for future use (e.g. ¶ 149; the user inputs information throughout that is compared to intensity scores).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Ahmed discloses playing a content item using the one or more output devices; in accordance with a determination that an upcoming portion of the content item has a characteristic associated with an increased likelihood of the user of the system experiencing the health event: modifying a characteristic of an environment of the user using the one or more output devices in accordance with the characteristic associated with the increased likelihood of the user of the system experiencing the health event (e.g. ¶ 153).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahmed et al. in view of Reykhert (US PGPUB 2021/0241900).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ahmed discloses the invention as previously described, but fails to teach in accordance with the calculation based on the physiological data and the current location of the system indicating that the likelihood of the user of the system experiencing the health event is above the threshold value, transmitting a notification to a second system associated with a second user different from the user of the system.
Reykhert teaches it is known to track health data and alert a second user at a remote location (e.g. ¶ 67 – 68). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Ahmed with alerting a second user as taught by Reykhert, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of quickly alerting a second user in case the wearer is not able to respond because of the health event.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796