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 .
Examiner finds no 35 USC 101 rejections in the current claim language.
Double Patenting Considerations:
U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 18/575,398 (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0315559) (abandoned):
The claim language of ‘398 (same assignee (Pink Nectarine Health AB) and one common inventor (Martin Linrey)) does not contain “active (activate) an inactive sensor or group of sensors of the wearable device” (and other detailed steps), as seen in the independent claim language of the present Application.
Therefore, there are no double patenting rejections in the current Application with regard to ‘398.
U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 18/575,421 (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0296857) (unexamined):
The claim language of ‘421 (same assignee (Pink Nectarine Health AB) and one common inventor (Martin Linrey)) does not contain “active (activate) an inactive sensor or group of sensors of the wearable device” (and other detailed steps), as seen in the independent claim language of the present Application.
Therefore, there are no double patenting rejections in the current Application with regard to ‘421.
U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 18/277,165 (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0138002 (corrected U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2024/0237100)) (currently rejected):
The claim language of ‘165 (same assignee (Pink Nectarine Health AB) and one common inventor (Martin Linrey)) does not contain “active (activate) an inactive sensor or group of sensors of the wearable device” (and other detailed steps), as seen in the independent claim language of the present Application.
Therefore, there are no double patenting rejections in the current Application with regard to ‘165.
U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 18/015,305 (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0262436) (currently rejected):
The claim language of ‘305 (same assignee (Pink Nectarine Health AB) and one common inventor (Martin Linrey)) does not contain “active (activate) an inactive sensor or group of sensors of the wearable device” (and other detailed steps), as seen in the independent claim language of the present Application.
Therefore, there are no double patenting rejections in the current Application with regard to ‘305.
U.S. Pat. Appl. No. 18/015,283 (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2023/0262436) (currently unacted upon):
The claim language of ‘283 (same assignee (Pink Nectarine Health AB) and one common inventor (Martin Linrey)) does not contain “active (activate) an inactive sensor or group of sensors of the wearable device” (and other detailed steps), as seen in the independent claim language of the present Application.
Therefore, there are no double patenting rejections in the current Application with regard to ‘283.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “in response to receiving at least one of control data instructing the wearable device to active an inactive sensor or group of sensors of the wearable device, and input data and/or sensor data indicating to the wearable device at least one of an alert state …” feature and all other features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 details “the wearable device to active an inactive sensor” (lines 16 – 17). More suitable language would be “the wearable device to activate an inactive sensor”;
Claim 15 details “the wearable device to active an inactive sensor” (line 15). More suitable language would be “the wearable device to activate an inactive sensor”;
Claim 15 details “the wearable device to active an inactive sensor” (line 18). More suitable language would be “the wearable device to activate an inactive sensor”;
Claim 17 details “the wearable device to active an inactive sensor” (line 16). More suitable language would be “the wearable device to activate a sensor”;
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a wearable device" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the wearable device”;
Claim 1 recites the limitation "each wearable device" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the each wearable device” or “the wearable device”;
Claim 4 recites the limitation "a wearable device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the wearable device” or “a second wearable device”;
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a wearable device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the wearable device” or “a second wearable device”;
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a wearable device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the wearable device” or “a second wearable device”;
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the respective wearable device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “a respective wearable device” or “the wearable device”;
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a wearable device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the wearable device” or “a second wearable device”;
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the wearable device" in lines 6 – 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “a wearable device”;
Claim 1 recites the limitation "one of the network nodes" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “one of a network nodes” or “one of the three network nodes”;
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the network node" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “a network node” or “the one network node”;
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the other network nodes" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “other network nodes”;
Claim 15 recites the limitation "one of the network nodes" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “one of the at least three network nodes”;
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the network nodes" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the at least three network nodes”;
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the network node" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “a network node”;
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the individual" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the individuals” or “an individual”;
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the individual" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the individuals” or “an individual”;
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the individual" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the individuals” or “an individual”;
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the individual" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “the individuals” or “an individual”;
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the SON" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “a self-organizing network (SON)”;
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the input device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner recommends the language “an input device”;
Examiner recommends a thorough review of the claim language in order to correct other possible antecedent basis concerns.
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.
Claims 1 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marzencki et al. (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0036198) in view of Grover (GB 2571128)
1.1 Regarding claim 1, Marzencki disclose a system for monitoring individuals including a backend system (Fig. 1, item 150; paragraph 115 “Next, at operation 740, the measured radio signal strengths for each transmission channel between a pair of PEGs 110 may be forwarded to a central control station (e.g. control station 150) for further data processing in order to calculate transmission coefficients or weights for each transmission channel or path in the cluster. In one embodiment, such data may be forwarded to the control station 150 via one or more gateways 130”; paragraph 35), a self-organizing network (SON) (Abstract “method of self-organizing sensor nodes in a wireless sensor network (WSN) … notifying a master node as to the identity of each sensor node …”; paragraph 36) comprising at least three network nodes communicatively connected to each other via established communication links and at least one wearable device comprising at least one at least one sensor (paragraph 34 “TAG 120 may have a compact form factor so as to be wearable by a person … and may include sensors for sensing physiological and/or status data””), and configured to transmit short-range wireless broadcast signals via its short-range wireless transmitter and temporarily listen for responses to the short-range wireless broadcast signals transmitted by themselves (paragraph 51 “all other PEGs 110 are configured to receive, detect or listen for the identification messages broadcasted by the requesting PEG 11”; paragraphs 67, 72; paragraph 68 “very limited reception range such as a reception range of only a few meters …”),
wherein each wearable device is assigned one network node to have the controller node role for the wearable device in that the controller node for a wearable device is configured to control and dynamically change which only one of the network nodes that currently has a short-range wireless connection with the wearable device (paragraph 35; paragraph 68 “very limited reception range such as a reception range of only a few meters …”),
wherein the network node having the controller node role for a wristband is further configured to receive and collect input data and/or sensor data for the wearable device received from the other network nodes (Abstract “method of self-organizing sensor nodes in a wireless sensor network (WSN) … notifying a master node as to the identity of each sensor node …”; paragraph 10 “master node (e.g. a control station) …”; paragraph 30 “Wireless sensing system 100 may advantageously permit a user to centrally operate from a base station or control station 150 (master node); paragraph 35; paragraph 68), and
wherein each wearable device is configured to receive and/or obtain at least one of control data, input data and sensor data (Abstract; paragraph 30 “Wireless sensing system 100 may advantageously permit a user to centrally operate from a base station or control station 150 (master node) to remotely access and control data collected by a wireless sensor network 160, such as by communication of such data through an intermediate network 140”; paragraph 31 “may relay sensor data …”; paragraph 37 “In such a way, each device can be located on the map of the target area after inputting individual device identification and corresponding manually obtained installation locations”).
However, Marzencki do not disclose the particulars regarding the activation of an inactive sensor or group of sensors.
Marzencki are directed to low power consumption and battery efficiency (paragraph 66 “may desirably provide for a more robust, accurate and/or lower power mobile node localization technique …”).
In the same field of invention (wearable sensors that detect human vital signs), Grover discloses a wearable sensor that is turned on in the event that the sensors detect appropriate human vital signs, but otherwise do not draw any power (p. 7, paragraph 4 “A device is provided for detecting a wearer’s condition. The device is arranged such that in normal use many of its components are not activated or turned on such that they do not draw any power. In the event of detection of some a parameter associated with a user’s condition the one or more sensors for detection of human vital signs are activated, i.e. turned or switched on, such that they are able to detect human vital signs”; p. 8, paragraph 8 “In one example, the wearable alarm device comprises a power management unit arranged to provide power to the one or more sensors for detection of human vital signs responsive to that an event has occurred, and to not provide power to the one or more sensors for detection of human vital signs unless such determination is made”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the particulars of Grover regarding the activation of an inactive sensor or group of sensors, in order to accomplish the stated goal of Marzencki regarding low power consumption (paragraph 66 “may desirably provide for a more robust, accurate and/or lower power mobile node localization technique …”).
1.2 Per claim 2, Marzencki do not explicitly disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the wearable device is configured to activate a second sensor or second group of sensors of the wearable device in response to at least one of input data and sensor data obtained by a first sensor or first group of sensors of the wearable device different from the second sensor or second group of sensors is indicating an alert state, a changed movement pattern or position, a changed physical condition, a changed health state and a changed physical orientation of the person wearing the wearable device.
Grover discloses a wearable device is configured to activate a second sensor or second group of sensors of the wearable device in response to at least one of input data and sensor data obtained by a first sensor or first group of sensors of the wearable device different from the second sensor or second group of sensors is indicating an alert state, a changed movement pattern or position, a changed physical condition, a changed health state and a changed physical orientation of the person wearing the wearable device (Abstract “detecting an individual’s condition comprises a controller, one or more movement sensors, and one or more human vital sign sensors”; p. 4, paragraph 3 “one or more movement sensors, and one or more sensors for detection of human vital signs …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the above feature of Grover into Marzencki in order to greatly decrease the possibility of a false alarm related to the wearable device of Marzencki.
1.3 Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 103 (paragraph 1.2 above) applies.
1.4 Per claim 4, Marzencki teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the hub node having the controller node role for a wearable device and being responsible for the wearable device is further configured to receive and collect input data and/or sensor data obtained by the input data and/or sensor data of the wearable device and, in response receiving input data and/or sensor data indicating at least one of an alert state, a changed movement pattern or position, a changed physical condition, a changed health state and a changed physical orientation of the person wearing the wearable device:
transmit control data to the wearable device instructing the wearable device to activate the sensor of the wearable device (paragraph 31 “wireless sensor network 160 may be arranged according to other known network topologies, such as topologies based on ring or hub type networks, or simply basic point to point transmission networks, for example”).
1.5 Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 103 (paragraph 1.2 above) applies.
1.6 Per claim 6, Marzencki do not explicitly teach the system according to claim 1, wherein the activated sensor or group of sensors is in sleep mode operation before being activated by the wearable device.
Grover teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the activated sensor or group of sensors is in sleep mode operation before being activated by the wearable device (p. 7, paragraph 4 “A device is provided for detecting a wearer’s condition. The device is arranged such that in normal use many of its components are not activated or turned on such that they do not draw any power. In the event of detection of some a parameter associated with a user’s condition the one or more sensors for detection of human vital signs are activated, i.e. turned or switched on, such that they are able to detect human vital signs”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to implement the particulars of Grover regarding the activation of an inactive sensor or group of sensors, in order to accomplish the stated goal of Marzencki regarding low power consumption (paragraph 66 “may desirably provide for a more robust, accurate and/or lower power mobile node localization technique …”).
1.7 Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 USC 103 (paragraph 1.2 above) applies.
1.8 Regarding claim 8, Marzencki disclose the system according to claim 7, wherein the downlink data is based on at least one of input data and sensor data obtained by the wearable device which is transmitted to the backend system by the one hub node assigned by the SON to have the controller node role for the wearable device (Abstract “method of self-organizing sensor nodes in a wireless sensor network (WSN) … notifying a master node as to the identity of each sensor node …”; paragraph 10 “master node (e.g. a control station) …”; paragraph 30 “Wireless sensing system 100 may advantageously permit a user to centrally operate from a base station or control station 150 (master node) to remotely access and control data collected by a wireless sensor network 160, such as by communication of such data through an intermediate network 140”).
1.9 Regarding claims 9 – 14, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 under 35 USC 103 apply.
1.10 Per claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 (paragraph 1.1 above) applies.
1.11 Regarding claims 16 and 17, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 under 35 USC 103 apply.
For future email communications (including interview agendas), Applicant should file the appropriate PTO form (PTO/SB/439) or file an air interview request.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH R COULTER whose telephone number is (571)272-3879. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9am-5pm (EST).
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, Oscar Louie can normally be reached on M-H, 7:30am-2:30pm (EST). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KENNETH R COULTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
/KRC/