DETAILED ACTION
In the response to this office action, the examiner respectfully requests that support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line numbers in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting this application.
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
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.
Claim(s) 15-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta et al. (US 20150379834 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Datta discloses a method comprising:
generating a first auditory alert with a first device (for example at time T1 unrelated to alerts below, emitting of emergency sound wave by either 308 of “first electronic device” 100 or 376 of subsequent device 150 or 182-190, see figure 3);
detecting a second auditory alert with the first device (for example at time T2 from second device unrelated to alert above, figure 3, via devices 150 or 182-190 or via 100 if the device left the mesh and returned, paragraph [0008], “This process allows the original alert to be propagated to many devices in the vicinity creating, in effect, a mesh of alerted devices. Even if the originating device leaves the mesh (e.g., is powered down or compromised), the mesh can remain active, for example at time T2); and
in response to detecting the second auditory alert, generating a third auditory alert with the first device different from the first auditory alert the second auditory alert (for example relaying alert from second device at T2 using “distinct” sound, see paragraph [0011], emitting of emergency sound wave by either 308 of “first electronic device” 100 or 376 of subsequent device 150 or 182-190, see figure 3, paragraph [0008], “Nearby devices that detect the emergency sound wave may then, once they validate the emergency sound wave (i.e., identify it as being an emergency sound wave) emit their own emergency sound waves (e.g., duplicates of the original emergency sound wave), and emit their own audible alerts, meaning if “first device” is originating device of “first auditory alert” the “second auditory alert” may contain alerts from a second device, independent from the “first auditory alert”).
Although Datta does not expressly disclose differing frequencies of alerts, it would have been obvious to designer that the scenario of T1 may happen either more frequently, less frequently, or the same amount as the scenario of T2 at their preference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise wherein the third auditory alert is generated more frequently than the first auditory alert in the system of Datta for the benefit of responding to a more frequent second auditory alert (that of a more frequent scenario).
Regarding claim 16, Datta discloses wherein at least one of (any of these may be speech, see paragraph [0019]) the first auditory alert, the second auditory alert, or the third auditory alert comprises an audible message (“help”, paragraph [019]) or an encoded message (“help”, paragraph [019]) or encoded message comprising information corresponding to a condition of the electronic device or a user of the electronic device (paragraph [0019], user or someone near needs help, paragraph [0028], “According to some embodiments, the sound waves emitted by the electronic devices of FIG. 3 include encoded data. For example, the first emergency sound wave 308 may contain information regarding the first electronic device 100, such as the device's IMEI and location. In relaying the emergency alert, the other electronic devices may also include this information in their respective emergency sound waves. Having this information may assist helpful passers-by and public safety officials in their efforts to help the user experiencing the emergency”).
Regarding claim 17, Datta discloses wherein the audible message or the encoded message comprises at least one of location data of the first device or a second device, status data of a status of a user of the first device or the second device, status data of an environment surrounding the first device or the second device, or instructions to be performed by the user of the first device or the second device (“help” the other user, paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 19, Datta discloses, wherein the first auditory alert is generated with less power relative to the third auditory alert (alerts with different frequencies emitted at different powers, paragraph [0008], “According to an embodiment, the emergency sound wave is a pure sine wave or “true” sine wave, which may allow it to travel more effectively through obstacles (e.g., walls). As a general rule, the frequency of a sound wave is inversely proportional to the distance it is able to travel. Thus, the frequency of the emergency sound wave may be suitably altered to allow it to travel larger distances, thereby increasing its effective radius”).
Regarding claim 20, Datta discloses further comprising performing digital signal processing with the first device to optimize detection of the second auditory alert (602, 604, and 606 as well as tests/processing 608-614 insure valid signals).
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20150074253 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses a method (figure 4, also see figures 1-3, paragraphs [0060] to [0068]) comprising:
generating a first auditory alert (442 of figure 4, paragraph [0067]) with a first device (202 of figure 4);
detecting a second auditory alert (444 of figure 4 from 206, paragraph [0067]) with the first device (202 of figure 4); and
in response to detecting the second auditory alert, generating a third auditory alert (446 of figure 4, paragraph [0067]) with the first device different from the first auditory alert and the second auditory alert (all different messages with different purposes, paragraph [0067]).
Although Lee does not expressly disclose the claimed frequencies, the examiner takes official notice that retrying to send signals that failed to properly send in handshaking (the reason handshaking exists) was well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise wherein the third auditory alert is generated more frequently than the first auditory alert in the system of Lee for the benefit of retrying the reply notification (444) and confirmation notification (446) steps of the handshake when noise or conditions prevent it from being completed properly.
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses wherein the second auditory alert (444 of figure 4) is generated by a second device (206 of figure 4) in response to the second device detecting the first auditory alert (442 of figure 4, paragraph [0067]).
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Datta et al. (US 20150379834 A1) in view of McKinley et al. (US 20140266705 A1) and Howard et al. (US 20210110682 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Datta discloses an electronic device (see at least figure 2) comprising:
a sensor configured to generate a signal (206 of figure 2, paragraph [0015], such as microphone to receive spoken “emergency trigger”, see paragraph [0019]);
a speaker configured to generate an auditory alert (212 of figure 2, paragraph [0015]);
a processor (202) in electronic communication with the sensor and the speaker (via 216, see figure 2); and
a memory device (208) in electronic communication with the processor, the memory device comprising electronic instructions encoded thereon which, when executed by the processor (paragraphs [0015] to [0016]), cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
monitoring the signal (signal of microphone 206 of figure 2 analyzed via flow of figure 6, paragraph [0015]);
determining whether the signal meets a threshold (at least step 608 of figure 6, paragraph [0026], “At block 608, the processor 354 tests the intensity of the sound wave (i.e., the first emergency sound wave 308 or the first all-clear sound wave 312) against a predetermined criterion”, paragraph [0019], threshold to determine event of “emergency trigger” such as user speaking “Help!”); and
generating the auditory alert in response to the signal meeting the threshold (YES at 608 leads to VALID block, 404 of figure 4, which leads to step 406).
Datta does not expressly disclose monitoring a user condition, alerting based on the electronic device being outside a network area, or wherein the alert is an audible message comprising instructions.
McKinley discloses an electronic device (see pendant 300 of figure 3) wherein generating an emergency trigger (see abstract, paragraphs [0016], [0022] to [0025], events sent to emergency assistance) based on a sensor includes a sensor configured to monitoring a user condition (such as monitoring pulse, paragraph [0044]) and generate a signal (paragraph [0044], such as reporting pulse rate events);
determining whether the signal meets a threshold based on the user condition (paragraph [0044], does the data such as pulse meet the criteria of sending an event/report); and
generating the auditory alert in response to the signal meeting the threshold (paragraph [0044], such as reporting pulse rate events) and the electronic device being outside a network area (such as out of a designated area, paragraph [0041], “an event is triggered when the pendant is determined to be outside of an allowed location range”, or outside a radio network range, paragraphs [0016], [0027] to [0028], and [0032] shows changing to providing events from secondary radio if out-of-range for primary radio).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the monitoring of user condition and alerting based on the device being outside a network area of McKinley in the system of Datta for the benefit of allowing for providing a greater range of alerts based on more information, being able to track the location of the electronic device, and still being able to provide the alerts if the device goes outside a network area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine McKinley with Datta, for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Howard discloses wherein an auditory alert comprises a message audible to a human ear (such as message on bottom of figure 2, see step 124 of figure 1) comprising instructions to be performed by a user receiving the auditory alert (given call is emergency services, and content of message of figure 2, responders would infer this is instructions to send help to the given location, paragraphs [0014] to [0021], see at least figures 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the audible message comprising instructions of Howard in the system of Datta and McKinley for the benefit of allowing a human to respond to the alert by giving them information/instructions on how to respond. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Howard with Datta and McKinley , for the benefits above, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Datta discloses the alert traveling a distance (see at least paragraph [0008] and figures 1A-1C).
Although Datta does not expressly disclose the exact distance, it would have been obvious to the designer that the distance may be any their preference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further comprise wherein the speaker is configured to generate the auditory alert at a frequency detectable by a human ear or a microphone at 600 ft in the system of Datta for the benefit of allowing the alert to be heard by people/devices far away.
Regarding claim 3, Datta discloses wherein a value of the threshold varies based on an activity type selected for the electronic device (wherein the sensor is instead the user button set to monitor button presses of a user and threshold is press/no press and number of presses, paragraphs [0015] and [0019], “There are many possible types of emergency triggers that may be used. In one embodiment, the trigger receiver 302 includes a power button and a power controller of the first electronic device 100, and the emergency trigger is successive presses on the power button”, paragraph [0030], “Each mode could be triggered by a different user input. For example, the emergency mode could be triggered by the user pressing the power button of the device four times in succession and the abduction mode being triggered by the user pressing the power button six times in succession”) or based on a health condition of a user of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 4, Datta discloses wherein the sensor is configured to monitor at least one of a vital sign, a movement (wherein the sensor is instead the user button set to monitor button presses of a user and threshold is press/no press and number of presses, paragraphs [0015] and [0019], “There are many possible types of emergency triggers that may be used. In one embodiment, the trigger receiver 302 includes a power button and a power controller of the first electronic device 100, and the emergency trigger is successive presses on the power button”), a position, or an orientation of a user of the electronic device.
Regarding claim 5, Datta discloses wherein the sensor is configured to monitor an environment surrounding the electronic device (sensor 206 of figure 2 is a microphone, paragraph [0015], how a microphone functions).
Regarding claim 6, Datta discloses wherein the auditory alert comprises an audible (“help”, paragraph [019]) or encoded message comprising information corresponding to a condition of the electronic device or a user of the electronic device (paragraph [0019], user or someone near needs help, paragraph [0028], “According to some embodiments, the sound waves emitted by the electronic devices of FIG. 3 include encoded data. For example, the first emergency sound wave 308 may contain information regarding the first electronic device 100, such as the device's IMEI and location. In relaying the emergency alert, the other electronic devices may also include this information in their respective emergency sound waves. Having this information may assist helpful passers-by and public safety officials in their efforts to help the user experiencing the emergency”).
Regarding claim 7, Datta discloses wherein the auditory alert is generated automatically (via step 406 of figure 4) in response to the signal meeting the threshold (YES at 608 leads to VALID block, 404 of figure 4, which leads to step 406) or is generated in response to a user action subsequent to the signal meeting the threshold.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10, 13, and 14 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowability:
Regarding claim 8 the claim as a whole is not obvious given the closest prior art, such as Haase et al. (US 20170270775 A1) which teaches “an electronic device comprising:
a microphone;
a display;
a processor in electronic communication with the microphone and the display; and a memory in electronic communication with the processor, the memory comprising electronic instructions encoded thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
detecting an auditory alert with the microphone;
based on the detected auditory alert, displaying a notification on the display indicating an origination direction of the auditory alert relative to the electronic device;
and determining a distance between an origin of the auditory alert and the electronic device based on a characteristic of the auditory alert detected by the microphone“.
However, none of the closest prior art expressly teaches or reasonably suggests the particular combination of “an electronic device comprising:
…
a processor in electronic communication with the microphone and the display; and a memory in electronic communication with the processor, the memory comprising electronic instructions encoded thereon which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising:
…
and determining a distance between an origin of the auditory alert and the electronic device based on a volume or frequency of the auditory alert detected by the microphone“, in combination with the other claim elements, in a manner as claimed.
Dependent claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 are allowed because they contain all the limitations of their independent claim as above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 1st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 8-14 have overcome the previous claim rejections.
In general applicant argues that the amendments to the previous claims are not found in prior art (see applicant’s arguments dated September 1st, 2026, starting page 9 for claims 15-20, page 12 for claims 1-7). A new ground of rejection has been established as above in light of the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS JOHN SUTHERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am -5 pm.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/DOUGLAS J SUTHERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights