Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 05/15/2026. Claims 1-5, 11-14, 16-21, and 82-86 have been presented for examination. New claims 84-86 have been added. Claims 1-5, 11-15, 16-21, and 82-86 have been examined.
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.
Claims 1-2, 11, 16, 21, and 85-86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ten Kate (Pub. No.: 2016/0203692 A1) in view of Song (Pub. No.: 2009/0315719 A1) and Calcano (Pub. No.: 2016/0262694 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Ten Kate discloses the claimed personal safety monitoring system (figs. 1-2) comprising:
a wearable device (fig. 3: 2), the wearable device comprising
a control circuit (fig. 3: 8);
a motion sensor (fig. 3: 4); and
a wireless signal receiver (fig. 3: 10);
wherein the personal safety monitoring system is configured to
detect loss of balance events (¶0065); and
determine physical location correlated with detected loss of balance events (¶0079).
Ten Kate does not explicitly disclose system logs the location, and the wearable device is an ear-wearable device.
However, Song discloses it has been known for a monitoring system to log the location of the event in the device memory (¶0052-¶0053).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Ten Kate to log the data in a memory, as taught by Song.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ten Kate as described above in order to allow the user to retrieve the data at a later date.
In addition, Calcano discloses it is known for a personal safety monitoring system (¶0003) to use an ear-wearable device for detecting a fall of a user (¶0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the device of Ten Kate to be an ear-wearable device, as taught by Calcano.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ten Kate as described above in order to utilize a device which would be attached to the user, as taught by Calcano.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the personal safety monitoring system is configured to provide a notification of physical locations associated with loss of balance events (Ten Kate ¶0079).
3) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 1), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1, the ear-wearable device further comprising a microphone (Ten Kate ¶0066).
4) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 1), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the detected loss of balance events are in response to a prompt or challenge (Song ¶0053 discloses an alarm is generated if a signal from the OK button is not received within a predetermined time).
5) In regard to claim 21 (dependent on claim 1), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the personal safety monitoring system is configured to detect vertical movement and correlate the same with detected loss of balance events (Song ¶0046).
6) In regard to claim 85 (dependent on claim 1), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the personal safety monitoring system is configured to provide a notification of physical locations associated with loss of balance events to a third party, the notification comprising a suggestion for mitigating risk at the physical locations associated with loss of balance events (Calcano ¶0166).
7) In regard to claim 86 (dependent on claim 1), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the personal safety monitoring system is configured to classify the severity of the detected loss of balance events based on a magnitude of signals detected by the motion sensor (Calcano ¶0029).
Claims 3-5 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ten Kate (Pub. No.: 2016/0203692 A1) in view of Song (Pub. No.: 2009/0315719 A1) and Calcano (Pub. No.: 2016/0262694 A1) and further in view of Huang (Pub. No.: 2013/0317944 A1).
1) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 2), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 2.
Ten Kate, Song and Calcano do not explicitly disclose the notification includes a warning of danger and the notification is delivered prior to encountering and/or reencountering the physical location.
However, Huang discloses it is known for a monitoring system notification includes a warning of danger and the notification is delivered prior to encountering and/or reencountering the physical location (¶0167-¶0168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Ten Kate to provide a notification prior to encountering a physical location, as taught by Huang.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ten Kate as described above in order to prewarn a user of an impending emergency.
2) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 2), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 2.
Ten Kate, Song and Calcano do not explicitly disclose the notification includes a warning of danger and the notification is delivered when approaching the physical location.
However, Huang discloses it is known for a monitoring system notification includes a warning of danger and the notification is delivered when approaching the physical location (¶0167-¶0168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Ten Kate to provide a notification prior to approaching a physical location, as taught by Huang.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ten Kate as described above in order to prewarn a user of an impending emergency.
3) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 2), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1.
Ten Kate, Song and Calcano do not explicitly disclose the personal safety monitoring system is configured to classify the determined physical location as being a perpetual or transient danger.
However, Huang discloses it is known for a monitoring system to classify the determined physical location as being a perpetual or transient danger (¶0167-¶0168).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Ten Kate to provide a notification of danger, as taught by Huang.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ten Kate as described above in order to prewarn a user of an impending emergency.
4) In regard to claim 82, claim 82 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 4 and the references applied.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ten Kate (Pub. No.: 2016/0203692 A1) in view of Song (Pub. No.: 2009/0315719 A1) and Calcano (Pub. No.: 2016/0262694 A1) and further in view of Parvaneh (Pub. No.: 2021/0052198 A1).
1) In regard to claim 12 (dependent on claim 11), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 11.
Ten Kate, Song and Calcano do not explicitly disclose loss of balance events are detected based on at least one of the microphone signals and the motion sensor signals.
However, Parvaneh discloses it has been known for a monitoring system to detect an event based on at least one of the microphone signals and the motion sensor signals (¶0007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Ten Kate to detect an event based on a motion and a microphone signal, as taught by Parvaneh.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ten Kate as described above in order to improve the overall efficiency of the system by reducing the number of false alarms.
Claims 13-14, 18-20, and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ten Kate (Pub. No.: 2016/0203692 A1) in view of Song (Pub. No.: 2009/0315719 A1) and Calcano (Pub. No.: 2016/0262694 A1) and further in view of Galarneau (Pub. No.: 2020/0380840 A1).
1) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 1), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1.
Ten Kate, Song and Calcano do not explicitly disclose the personal safety monitoring system is configured to calculate balance recovery metrics after detected loss of balance events.
However, Galarneau discloses it has been known for a monitoring system to be configured to calculate balance recovery metrics after detected loss of balance events (¶0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Ten Kate to calculate a recovery metric of the event, as taught by Galarneau.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ten Kate as described above in order to calibrate the device to reduce the number of false alarms.
2) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 13), Ten Kate, Song, Calcano and Galarneau further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 13, the balance recovery metrics comprising a balance recovery time (Galarneau ¶0068).
3) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 1), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1,
Ten Kate, Song and Calcano do not explicitly disclose the personal safety monitoring system is configured to correlate time of day with detected loss of balance events.
However, Galarneau discloses it has been known for a monitoring system to be configured to correlate a time of day with detected loss of balance events (¶0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention filed to allow the system of Ten Kate to correlate a time of day to a detected event, as taught by Galarneau.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ten Kate as described above in order to increase the overall efficiency of the system by monitoring for certain times of the day for an event.
4) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 1), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1,
Ten Kate, Song and Calcano do not explicitly disclose the personal safety monitoring system is configured to correlate occurrences of a daily event with detected loss of balance events.
However, Galarneau discloses it has been known for a monitoring system to be configured to correlate occurrences of a daily event with detected loss of balance events (¶0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Ten Kate to correlate a daily event with an emergency event, as taught by Galarneau.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ten Kate as described above in order to increase the overall efficiency of the system by monitoring for certain daily events to detect an emergency event.
5) In regard to claim 20 (dependent on claim 19), Ten Kate, Song, Calcano and Galarneau further disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 19, the daily event comprising at least one selected from the group consisting of a bed time, a rising time, a meal time, and a bathroom time (Galarneau ¶0084).
6) In regard to claim 83, claim 83 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 18 and the references applied.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ten Kate (Pub. No.: 2016/0203692 A1) in view of Song (Pub. No.: 2009/0315719 A1) and Calcano (Pub. No.: 2016/0262694 A1) and further in view of Burwinkel (Pub. No.: 2020/0205746 A1).
1) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 1), Ten Kate, Song and Calcano disclose the personal safety monitoring system of claim 1.
Ten Kate, Song and Calcano do not explicitly disclose the personal safety monitoring system is configured to correlate medication administration times with detected loss of balance events.
However, Burwinkel discloses it is known for a personal safety monitoring system to correlate a medication administration times with detected loss of balance events (¶0034-¶0035).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the monitoring system of Ten Kate to correlate an event with an administration time of a medication, as taught by Burwinkel.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Ten Kate as described above in order to increase the efficiency of the system by monitoring at specific times.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 84 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights