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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment and request for continued examination filed 01/27/2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application.
Double Patenting
Applicant’s amendment overcome the previous double patenting rejection. The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice.
As per claim 1, “a mobile/wearable personal-safety apparatus wearable by a user” appears redundant, e.g. a wearable apparatus wearable by a user. The Examiner suggests removing the alternative “/” and selecting a single term. “wherein the mobile personal-safety apparatus may or may not store the first plurality of data within its own memory” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear whether and storing of the first plurality of data is required by the claimed invention. The term “inform” is indefinite because it is unclear as to how a device, i.e. a transceiver, informs a mobile computing device of the emergency, which is generally interpreted as being a human action. Similarly, “then in turn” is not generally a term that conforms with current U.S. Practice. As per “its copy of the first plurality of data”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “wherein redundancy is achieved” does not conform with current U.S. practice. The Examiner suggests amending “wherein redundancy is achieved” with “establishing redundancy by creating a first data log” or similar. With the steps of “creating”, the Examiner suggests amending the tenses of the functional language to be consistent, e.g. creating vs created. “Data logs” should be amended to be consistent with the established first, second, and third data logs. Lastly, “data not sent from the wearable device to a remote server in order to save battery life” should be amended to define that data is not transmitted directly from the wearable device to the remote server, or similar.
Claims 2-20 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for the same reasons as claim 1, and additionally because of their dependency on claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest related prior art to the Applicant’s claimed invention is Robil (U.S. 2017/0193306 A1). Robil discloses a wearable camera activated security accessory that determines an emergency condition, e.g. a child abduction, activates a camera, and transmits images captured by the camera to a server (see Robil, Fig. 1). Robil, however, does not disclose a microphone, transmitting a first plurality of data (which includes video and audio data) to a mobile computing device that is paired with a mobile-safety apparatus, a first, second, and third data log created at the wearable device, mobile device, and server, respectively, wherein the first plurality of data corresponds to data stored before the emergency condition, and wherein the data is not sent directly from the wearable device to a remote server. Additionally, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Robil to conclude at the Applicant’s claimed invention, without using improper hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F.
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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/JAMES J YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686