DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19, 20 and 22-28 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/19/2026. No reasons for traversal were provided, therefore, the requirement is deemed FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13-18 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view Larson et al.
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 13-18 and 29 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.
Regarding Claims 13 and 29, the limitation “a second algorithm for a second location which is different from the first algorithm” renders the claim indefinite. As claimed, it appears the claim is setting forth that the second location is different from the first algorithm – this is indefinite because it is comparing two unlike things. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that the first algorithm is different than the second algorithm.
Regarding Claims 13 and 29, the claims set forth a single “location of the communication device”, a single “evaluation algorithm corresponding to the identified location”, but then recites “a first location” and “a second location” without stating any relationship to “the identified location”. Therefore, it is unclear the relationship between the location, of the communication device, the first location, and the second location. For purposes of examination the indefinite limitation has been deemed to claim that there is location information identifying a location of a plurality of communication devices, where the first and second location are at least two of the plurality of locations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 13 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20150320339 A1 to Larson et al. (hereinafter, Larson).
Regarding Claims 13 and 29, Larson discloses an information processing apparatus and method comprising inter alia:
a receiver acquiring sensor information received from a wearable device and location information identifying a location of a communication device which establishes a wireless connection with the wearable device to receives the sensor information ([0025] “each of the transceivers 400 senses the location of the sensor 410 on a patient 415 and communicates with a host 420”) (Abstract “a plurality of readers or transceivers in known relative location within the patient care environment detect or communicate with the sensors or markers to identify user location”) ([0011] “FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment of the invention showing a single sensor on the patient, with a plurality of transceivers in known locations in communication with a host.”); and
a controller identifying the location of the communication device based on the location information ([0025] “the host analyzes the received signal strength of the various transceiver signals”) ([0006] “the location sensing modality used can include multi-angulation, multi-lateration, scene analysis (such as visual image analysis), or proximity sensing”) ([0036] “determining that the user is lying in a location that the user would not normally lie down, such as away from the support surface, bathtub, chair, bed, or other location”);
selecting, from a plurality of different evaluation algorithms, an evaluation algorithm corresponding to the identified location ([0034] “Different thresholds of movement, or degree of relocation relative to a support surface, can be set.”) ([0044] “A predictive algorithm can assign different weighting to the various characteristics when being evaluated by the host program for determining whether the overall threshold is exceeded.”) ([0048] “certain inputs, such as location data, acceleration data, or other inputs or combinations thereof that are highly associated with falls or bed exists can also be used to help build the algorithm. Such data, as discussed earlier, may include the location of the patient and parts of the patient close to the ground, etc. An alternative that can be used in addition to or independently from an algorithm based on statistical techniques is one that can be expertly generated”) ([0044] “A predictive algorithm can assign different weighting to the various characteristics when being evaluated by the host program for determining whether the overall threshold is exceeded.”) (Larson discloses setting a threshold and weighing for the fall/bed-exit determination that vary with the user’s location relative to a support surface [0034] [0044], and using that location as a determinant built into the predictive algorithm [0048], such that a different evaluation algorithm is applied, i.e., selected, for the identified location); and
executing, based on the location information and the sensor information, the selected evaluation algorithm to evaluate a risk of a user who wears the wearable device ([0045] “Once the various patient characteristics are detected and received as indicated at 550, FIG. 5, the totality of the detected variables is factored and analyzed to determine the likelihood of a fall, or a bed exit, or a movement, as indicated at 555.”), wherein the plurality of different evaluation algorithms include at least a first algorithm for a first location and a second algorithm for a second location which is different from the first algorithm ([0036] “determining that the user is lying in a location that the user would not normally lie down, such as away from the support surface, bathtub, chair, bed, or other location associated with normally lying flat, may also indicate an increased likelihood of a fall”) (Because Larson sets a location-specific threshold and weighing for the determination relative to each support-surface/location the user occupies [0034] [0044], the locations including support surface, bathtub, chair, bed, etc. [0036], the evaluation applied at a first location (e.g., bed) uses a different threshold/weighing than the evaluation applied at a second location (e.g., a chair or bathtub), Larson uses a plurality of algorithms for a plurality of differing locations).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in view of CA 3039828 A1 / WO 2018/069262 A1 to Annegarn et al. (hereinafter, Annegarn).
Larson discloses the location of the communication device includes a location of a bed, the controller is configured to execute the evaluation algorithm to determine whether the user may be falling down, and where the evaluation algorithm to determine whether the user may be falling down from the bed is different from other algorithms where the user may be falling down, such as a bathtub, chair, bed (Because Larson sets a location-specific threshold and weighing for the determination relative to each support-surface/location the user occupies [0034] [0044], the locations including support surface, bathtub, chair, bed, etc. [0036], the evaluation applied at a first location (e.g., bed) uses a different threshold/weighing than the evaluation applied at a second location (e.g., a chair or bathtub), Larson uses a plurality of algorithms for a plurality of differing locations). Larson discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing where the locations also include a toilet and a wheelchair.
However, Annegarn teaches a device in the same field of endeavor: a method for determining risk of a subject falling (pg. 1, ll. 2-3) based on movement sensors worn by a person (pg. 3, ll. 27-29) and location/context information (pg. 5, 29-31) and further teaches that a wheelchair (pg. 11, ll. 21-23) and a toilet (pg. 9, ll. 22-23) are locations monitored for falls. One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify locations with their own individual algorithms to include also include the wheelchair and toilet of Annegarn, as Annegarn teaches known different contexts in which motions occur can make the risk of fall measurement more accurate (pg. 3, ll. 18-24) and further teaches that knowing the context of where a person is during a movement would have improved reliability and sensitivity of the fall risk assessment (pg. 13, ll. 14-18).
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson in view of Posture estimation and human support using wearable sensors and walking-aid robot to Huang et al. (hereinafter, Huang).
Larson discloses (Claim 15) wherein the controller is configured to execute a processe identifying a peripheral device located around the user based on at least one of the location information ([0030] “Sensors may be placed on any asset where it may be desirable to understand the location, position, orientation and other characteristics of such asset relative to the environment. In addition to determining the relative location and/or orientation of patients and objects, sensors may also be placed on floors, walls, elevators, etc. to define the physical architecture of the patient care environment.”) ([0032] “It should be further pointed out that the sensors described herein developed for position, orientation, and location sensing can also be incorporated into other devices.”) and information identifying the user who wears the wearable device ([0049] “stored sensor identifier, and communicates with a base station/host 735”) ([0044] “501 user demographics and history”) and (Claim 21) wherein the controller is configured to execute a processing identifying a peripheral device located around the user based on the location information ([0030] “Sensors may be placed on any asset where it may be desirable to understand the location, position, orientation and other characteristics of such asset relative to the environment. In addition to determining the relative location and/or orientation of patients and objects, sensors may also be placed on floors, walls, elevators, etc. to define the physical architecture of the patient care environment.”) ([0032] “It should be further pointed out that the sensors described herein developed for position, orientation, and location sensing can also be incorporated into other devices.”).
Larson discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing (Claims 15 and 21) controlling/activating the peripheral device based on the evaluation algorithm to determine whether the user may be falling down based on sensor information and evaluate the risk of the user who wears the wearable device, (Claims 16) where the peripheral device is a device including a caster, and the controller is configured to lock the caster of the peripheral device if the controller determines the user has the risk of falling down, and (Claim 18) wherein the peripheral device including the caster includes at least one of a table and a wheeled walker.
However, Huang teaches (Claims 15, 18 and 21) a walking-aid wheeled robot (see 2. Walking-aid robot, pg. 25) that is developed to assist an individual wearing wearable sensors (see 3.1 Wearable sensors, pg. 27 and 3.2 Gait recognition pgs. 27-29), where, when the tendency/risk to fall is detected from the sensors, the robot will react to prevent the user from falling down (see 3.3 Fall detection pgs. 29-30), (Claim 16) where the peripheral device is a device including a caster (2. Walking-aid robot “The omni-directional mobile base comprises three commercial omni-wheels and actuators…casters are also mounted on the base to widen the support area so as to enhance the stability.”), and (Claim 16) the controller is configured to lock the caster of the peripheral device if the controller determines the user has the risk of falling down (pgs. 38-41 5. Conclusion “During normal walking, the robot is controlled by a conventional admittance control strategy. If any fall is detected using wearable sensors the robot will stop immediately to prevent the user from falling down.”).
One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the information processing apparatus, including the body worn sensors of Larson to including the walking-aid robot to prevent the user from falling down of Huang, as Huang teaches under “5. Conclusions” that the wearable sensors attached to the body would have allowed to use the robot to prevent a fall. Both Larson and Huang disclose body worn sensors to detect/prevent falls, to further use the body sensors of Larson to control a robot to prevent falls would have been an obvious, practical use of the sensors to prevent injuries.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson and Huang and further in view of “Hobbit, a care robot supporting independent living at home: First prototype and lessons learned” to Fishinger et al. (hereinafter, Fishinger).
Larson in view of Huang teach where the peripheral devices is a device including a caster to move the deivce (Huang: 2. Walking-aid robot “The omni-directional mobile base comprises three commercial omni-wheels and actuators…casters are also mounted on the base to widen the support area so as to enhance the stability.”). Larson and Huang teach the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing if the controller determines the user has the risk of falling down, the controller is configured to control the peripheral device to move the peripheral device closer to the user by driving the caster of the peripheral device.
However, Fishinger teaches a robot of a robot care system that assists in fall prevention and patient handing (Abstract). Fishinger teaches where the robot has a fall detection function that uses sensors to determine if user needs assistance (e.g., identification of body fall/instability), and in this case, moves the robot to approach the user’s position (5.7 Fall detection and help function). One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the fall detection system of Larson and Huang to include the assistive robot of Fishinger, as Fishinger teaches that fall detection in adults is a major health risk, and their robot would have provided support to individuals to prevent falls and call for help (5.7 Fall detection system). Both Larson/Huang and Fishinger teach sensors to detect/prevent falls, to further use the body sensors of Fishinger to control a robot to move to the patient to prevent falls would have been an obvious, practical use of the sensors to prevent injuries.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights