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 § 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore (US 2020/0098247) (hereafter Moore) in view of Lyman et al. (US 10304305)(hereafter Lyman).
Regarding claim 1, Moore discloses a wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of emergencies, the wearable bracelet (see, Fig. 1) comprising:
a combination of a plurality of lights (see, para [0026]), a vibrator (see, para [0035]) and a transceiver (see, para [0022], [0023], )for receiving a
wherein said bracelet receiving said broadcast alert and actuating said plurality of lights and said vibrator for alerting the wearer of said bracelet of said broadcast alert (see, para [0005], see, para [0020], receiver bracelet, 110, transmitter bracelet, 120 are paired together with the wi-fi, Bluetooth etc.); and
further wherein said actuating said lights including illuminating said plurality of lights in at least one color (see, para [0026], in case of emergency situation the plurality of lights performs lighting functions including flash, strobe, blink, pulse, fade etc.).
Moore does not explicitly disclose public announcement. however, Lyman teaches lockdown apparatus and initiation of lockdown procedures at a facility during emergency. See, abstract, the lockdown apparatus can include an actuator configured to transmit a lockdown initiation signal upon being actuated. The actuator can be configured to be recognizably distinguishable from a fire alarm actuator. The lockdown apparatus can also include a lockdown communicator configured to produce a lockdown communication for communicating initiation of lockdown procedures to the facility occupants and individuals not disposed proximate the facility upon transmission of the lockdown initiation signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bracelet device as disclosed by the Moore to alert the wearer or emergency situation using public announcements as disclosed in Lyman, the motivation is to alert the wearer of emergency during lockdown procedure.
Regarding claims 2, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 1, wherein said broadcast alert is transmitted via a wireless short range communication channel (see, para [0020]).
Regarding claims 3, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 2 further comprising a paired user device, wherein said broadcast alert is transmitted via said paired user device (see, Fig. 1, first pair device, 110 and second pair device, 120 are communicated with each other, see, paired user device, 130).
Regarding claim 4, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 3, wherein said broadcast alert from said paired user device is within a predetermined radius from said paired user device (see, Fig. 1, paired user device, 130 is communicated with the 110 and 120 bracelets, note that it’s communicated through Bluetooth hence it’s in close proximity to each other interpreted as predetermined radius).
Regarding claims 5, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 4, wherein said paired user device is a smartphone (see, Fig. 1, 130).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore and Lyman and further in view of Nagale et al. (US 2023/0290233) (hereafter Nagale).
Regarding claims 6, Moore does not explicitly disclose the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 2, wherein said actuating of said plurality of lights including actuating a first color for a first emergency and at least a second color for a second emergency. However, in same field of endeavor, Nagale teaches in para [0065], The patterns or symbols formed by emitted light can be used to visually represent different emergency events or movement directions. For example, a combination of LEDs can be activated to emit pink light while forming a flame symbol to indicate a fire event and another combination of LEDs can be activated to emit purple light while forming a gun symbol to indicate gunshot event. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nagale with the Moore and Lyman, as a whole, to use the different lighting pattern to visually represent different emergency events, the motivation is to alert the person of different emergencies.
Regarding claim 7, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 6, wherein said actuating of said plurality of lights including flashing of at least one light of said plurality of lights (see, para [0026], [0031]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Lyman and further in view of Shverdin et al. (US 11716036) (hereafter Shverdin).
Regarding claim 8, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 2, wherein said vibrator (see, [0035] Additionally, the receiver bracelet 110 may include a vibrating mechanism to allow the receiver bracelet 110 to vibrate in response to a signal (e.g., an emergency signal) received from the transmitter bracelet 120). But does not explicitly disclose having a motor selected from a group consisting of an eccentric rotating mass motor, a linear vibration motor, and a piezoelectric actuator however in same field of endeavor, Shverdin, see, abstract, col.1 lines 60-67 teaches the resonant piezoelectric actuator may be configured to impart a force on the mass via the first spring responsive to an applied voltage. The device may include a power source configured to supply the applied voltage to the resonant piezoelectric actuator, where motion of the mass generates vibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Shverdin with the Moore and Lyman, as a whole, so as to use the devices as taught by the Shverdin as vibration device of Moore, the motivation is to yield predictable results.
9. Claim(s) 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Lyman and further in view of Ratajczyk (US2013/0154826) (hereafter Rataj).
Regarding claim 9, Moore discloses a wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of emergencies, the wearable bracelet comprising:
a plurality of lights (see, para [0026]), a vibrator (see, para [0035]) and a transceiver (see, para [0022], [0023]) and paired user device for receiving a lights turn on in response to received signal), wherein said public announcement is a broadcast alert (see, Fig. 1, 130 user device);
wherein said bracelet receiving said broadcast alert and actuating said plurality of lights and said vibrator for alerting the wearer of said bracelet of said broadcast alert (see, para [0005], see, para [0020], receiver bracelet, 110, transmitter bracelet, 120 are paired together with the wi-fi, Bluetooth etc.);
wherein said broadcast alert is transmitted
further wherein said broadcast alert from
Moore does not explicitly disclose public announcement however, Lyman teaches lockdown apparatus and initiation of lockdown procedures at a facility during emergency. See, abstract, the lockdown apparatus can include an actuator configured to transmit a lockdown initiation signal upon being actuated. The actuator can be configured to be recognizably distinguishable from a fire alarm actuator. The lockdown apparatus can also include a lockdown communicator configured to produce a lockdown communication for communicating initiation of lockdown procedures to the facility occupants and individuals not disposed proximate the facility upon transmission of the lockdown initiation signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the bracelet device as disclosed by the Moore to alert the wearer or emergency situation using public announcements as disclosed in Lyman, the motivation is to alert the wearer of emergency during lockdown procedure.
The combined teachings do not disclose emergency alert transmitted via the paired user device.
In same field of endeavor, Rataj teaches in para [0034], The signal notification bracelet 100 is a wearable article that contains a vibrator, at least one light source, a sensor chip, and a battery. A band formed from a waterproof; elastic material houses the circuitry components. When the sensor chip perceives an incoming signal from the wireless transmission receiving device, an integrated alert circuit instructs the light to illuminate and the vibrator to vibrate. The bracelet thus provides both visual and tactile feedback to the user, wherein the wireless transmission receiving device perceives an incoming signal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Rataj with the Moore and Lyman, as a whole, to receive the emergency signal by bracelet from the paired user device, the motivation is to provide tactile and visual alert.
Regarding claims 10, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 1, wherein said broadcast alert is transmitted via a wireless short range communication channel (see, para [0020]).
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason claim 1 is rejected (see last limitation of Claim 1 for rejection purpose).
Regarding claims 12, the combined teachings further disclose the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 4, wherein said paired user device is a smartphone (see, Rataj, Fig. 1, 200).
10. Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Lyman and Rataj and further in view of Nagale et al. (US 2023/0290233) (hereafter Nagale).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 2, wherein said actuating of said plurality of lights including actuating a first color for a first emergency and at least a second color for a second emergency. However, in same field of endeavor, Nagale teaches in para [0065], The patterns or symbols formed by emitted light can be used to visually represent different emergency events or movement directions. For example, a combination of LEDs can be activated to emit pink light while forming a flame symbol to indicate a fire event and another combination of LEDs can be activated to emit purple light while forming a gun symbol to indicate gunshot event. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Nagale with the Moore, Lyman and Rataj, as a whole, to use the different lighting pattern to visually represent different emergency events, the motivation is to alert the person of different emergencies.
Regarding claim 14, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer of claim 13, wherein said actuating of said plurality of lights including flashing of at least one light of said plurality of lights (see, para [0026], in case of emergency situation the plurality of lights performs lighting functions including flash, strobe, blink, pulse, fade etc.).
11. Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Lyman, Rataj and Nagale and further in view of Shverdin et al. (US 11716036) (hereafter Shverdin).
Regarding claim 15, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for alerting the wearer, wherein said vibrator (see, [0035] Additionally, the receiver bracelet 110 may include a vibrating mechanism to allow the receiver bracelet 110 to vibrate in response to a signal (e.g., an emergency signal) received from the transmitter bracelet 120). But combined teachings do not explicitly disclose having a motor selected from a group consisting of an eccentric rotating mass motor, a linear vibration motor, and a piezoelectric actuator however in same field of endeavor, Shverdin, see, abstract, col.1 lines 60-67 teaches the resonant piezoelectric actuator may be configured to impart a force on the mass via the first spring responsive to an applied voltage. The device may include a power source configured to supply the applied voltage to the resonant piezoelectric actuator, where motion of the mass generates vibration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Shverdin with the Moore, Lyman, Rataj and Nagale, as a whole, so as to use the devices as taught by the Shverdin as vibration device of Moore, the motivation is to yield predictable results.
12. Claim(s) 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore and Rataj and further in view of Carter et al. (US 11854375)(hereafter Carter).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings disclose a wearable bracelet for receiving and sending alerts, the wearable bracelet comprising: a combination of a plurality of lights, a vibrator, a transceiver, and a paired user device (see, Moore, Fig.1 , see, para [0006], transmitter bracelet including alarm lights turn on in response to received signal, para [0022], [02023], [0026]);
wherein said bracelet receiving a broadcast alert from said paired user device (Rataj, teaches in para [0034], The signal notification bracelet 100 is a wearable article that contains a vibrator, at least one light source, a sensor chip, and a battery. A band formed from a waterproof; elastic material houses the circuitry components. When the sensor chip perceives an incoming signal from the wireless transmission receiving device, an integrated alert circuit instructs the light to illuminate and the vibrator to vibrate. The bracelet thus provides both visual and tactile feedback to the user, wherein the wireless transmission receiving device perceives an incoming signal), wherein said bracelet actuating said plurality of lights and said vibrator for alerting the wearer of said bracelet of said broadcast alert (see, Moore, para [0005], see, para [0020], receiver bracelet, 110, transmitter bracelet, 120 are paired together with the wi-fi, Bluetooth etc.);
the combined teachings do not explicitly disclose a wearable bracelet for receiving broadcast alert from said paired user device, the wearable bracelet comprising: a GPS, a SOS signal, and further wherein said bracelet sending said SOS signal and said GPS signal to said paired user device for determining a position of the wearer of said wearable bracelet. however, in same field of endeavor, Carter teaches, col. 10 lines 20-35 teaches the wireless signal transmitted to the cloud server 190 is a distress signal and the transmitted data includes distress data (e.g., “SOS”) and unique identifying data for the mobile, wearable EMS visual light guidance aiding device 400. In some embodiments, the data transmitted to the cloud server 190 also includes location data associated with a relative geo-spatial position of the person and the mobile, wearable EMS visual light guidance aiding device 400. In some embodiments, the geo-spatial position is determined based on GPS data from an onboard GPS module of the mobile, wearable EMS visual light guidance aiding device 400. In some embodiments, the geo-spatial position is determined based on GPS data from a communicably connect mobile device of the person which has its own GPS module.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Carter with the Moore and Rataj as a whole, so as to use GPS and SOS signals as taught by Rataj to determine the location of the device, the motivation is to guide emergency to a specific location.
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings further disclose the wearable bracelet for receiving and sending alerts of claim 16, wherein said SOS signal is an audible alarm (see, Carter, col. 10 lines 20-35, distress data (SOS)).
Regarding claim 18, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for receiving and sending alerts, wherein said broadcast alert from said paired user device is within a predetermined radius from said paired user device (see, Fig. 1, paired user device, 130 is communicated with the 110 and 120 bracelets, note that it’s communicated through Bluetooth hence it’s in close proximity to each other interpreted as predetermined radius).
Regarding claim 19, Moore further discloses the wearable bracelet for receiving and sending alerts, wherein said paired user device is a smartphone (see, Fig. 1, 130).
13. Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore, Rataj and Carter and further in view of Bonazzoli et al. (US10425899) (hereafter Bonazzoli).
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings do not disclose the wearable bracelet for receiving and sending alerts of claim 19 further comprising a biometric sensor to measure a vital sign of the wearer of said wearable bracelet, wherein said SOS signal sent to said paired user device upon detection of an abnormal said vital sign. However, Bonazzoli, col 3 lines 35-50 teaches in response to the emergency message, each smartphone 115A-D (only 115A in the figure) collects one or more involvement parameters. The involvement parameters depend on an involvement of the person that holds the smartphone 115A in the emergency condition (such as his/her health condition). For example, the involvement parameters are determined from a sound that is recorded by a microphone of the smartphone 115A (such as recognizing a help request). In addition, the involvement parameters are defined by biometric (heartrate, perspiration, blood pressure, etc.) parameters of the person that are measured by a wearable unit, for example, a smart watch 120 that is associated with the smartphone 115A. In some embodiments, one or more of the involvement parameters may be pre-programmed based on a user's known health information (e.g., a known condition/ailment). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Bonazzoli into the system of Moore, Rataj and Carter, as a whole, so as to determine the biometric parameters by Bracelet and sending the auditory signal to the smartphone, the motivation is to notify or alerting about the emergency situation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAVAL V PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8:00am-4:30pm).
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, Hannah Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/DHAVAL V PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631