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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/12/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record, Aquino fails to disclose elements of claim 1, “detecting an emergent event”, “determining, based on the emerging event, at least one characteristic of the one or more characteristics that are to affect an individual of the at least one individual in response to the emergent event”, and “determining, based on the at least one characteristic, an action to be performed to assist the individual in response to the emergent event”. Examiner disagrees with this statement.
Regarding claim 1, Aquino et. al. discloses a method performed by an assistance
platform (a processor system configured to receive video frames from a video stream provided
by the plurality of video cameras, col 3, lines 1-4), the method comprising: analyzing video data,
of an environment, using one or more machine learning models trained to recognize guests and
characteristics of the guests (col 3, lines 10-15); recognizing, based on analyzing the video data, a plurality of guests located in the environment; recognizing, based on analyzing the video
data, a plurality of characteristics exhibited by the plurality of guests (col 3, lines 30-40), wherein
the plurality of characteristics affect the ability of at least one guest to respond to an emergent
event (col 3, lines 55-60, where the event is construed as a fall event); determining, prior to
detecting the emergent event, one or more characteristics of the plurality of characteristics that
are to affect a mobility of a guest, of the plurality of guests, during the emergent event; detecting
that the emergent event has occurred (col 4, lines 4-19); determining, based on the one or more
characteristics, an action to be performed to assist the guest during the emergent event; and
causing the action to be performed to assist the guest during the emergent event (col 12, lines
5-10, where an alert is sent to an authorized caregiver in multiple forms). The emergent event is defined by Aquino as a fall, a pressure ulcer or other defined first event such as wandering, postural hypotension, use of dangerous objects, seizures, choking, etc. (Aquino col 6, lines 1-5). The characteristics are identified by object recognition of a vulnerable person, which a machine algorithm applies facial recognition that identifies by name, the vulnerable person, and determines a posture of the named vulnerable person by identifying joints, limbs, and body parts, and their respective orientations to each other from the received video frame (Aquino col 3, lines 5-20). Aquino also discloses “determining, based on the at least one characteristic, an action to be performed to assist the individual in response to the emergent event” because the video monitoring system, in addition to automated detection of events, also implements a predictive function that may warn caregivers that a possible adverse event may occur to a vulnerable person (Aquino col 6., lines 1-15). Thus, the prior art of record, Aquino, is still effective in rejecting the amended claims. An updated search was also performed to find new prior art to reject the new claims as filed.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 objected to because of the following informalities:
“…the information not including an identify of the individual.” Should read “…the information not including an identity of the individual.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-12, 14-16, 19-21, 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Aquino et. al. (US Patent 11,282,367 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Aquino et. al. discloses a method performed by an assistance platform (a processor system configured to receive video frames from a video stream provided
by the plurality of video cameras, col 3, lines 1-4), the method comprising: receiving video data of an environment; recognizing, based on the video data and using one or more machine learning models, a plurality of individuals located in the environment (col 3, lines 10-15); recognizing, based on the video data and using the one or more machine learning models, one or more characteristics exhibited by at least one individual of the plurality of individuals (col 3, lines 30-40); detecting an emergent event; determining, based on the emergent event (col 3, lines 55-60, where the event is construed as a fall event), at least one characteristic of the one or more characteristics that are to affect an individual of the at least one individual in response to the emergent event (col 4, lines 4-19); determining, based on the at least one characteristic, an action to be performed to assist the individual in response to the emergent event; and causing the action to be performed to assist the individual during the emergent event (col 12, lines 5-10, where an alert is sent to an authorized caregiver in multiple forms).
Regarding claim 15, the analysis of claim 1 of which is incorporated herein. Aquino et. al. also discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device, cause the device to: receive video data of an environment; recognize, based on the video data, an individual out of a plurality of objects in the environment; recognize, based on the video data, one or more characteristics exhibited by the individual,; detect that an event has occurred in the environment; determine, based on the event, at least one characteristic of the one or more characteristics that are to affect the individual during the event; determine, based on the at least one characteristic, an action to be performed to assist the individual; and cause the action to be performed to assist the individual (claim 1, Figure 26; col. 25, lines 17-52).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
712
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 and 19, Aquino et. al. discloses the method of claim 1 and non-
transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein determining the at least one characteristics comprises one or more of: determining, based the video data, a characteristic indicating a mobility restriction of the individual determining, based on the video data, a characteristic indicating an age of the individual or determining, based on the video data, a characteristic indicating that the individual is carrying a load (col. 7, lines 22-36).
PNG
media_image3.png
272
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 20, Aquino et. al. discloses the method of claim 1 and non-
transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16, wherein causing the action to be performed comprises at least one of causing equipment or personnel to be dispatched to assist the individual during the emergent event or causing information to be provided to the individual during the emergent event (alert module 340, col 12, lines 1-14).
PNG
media_image4.png
330
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Aquino et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing, prior to detecting the emergent event, assistance information identifying the one or more characteristics and identifying locations of a particular one of the individuals of the plurality of individuals within the environment, wherein the particular one of the individuals exhibits the one or more characteristics; in response to detecting the emergent event, retrieving the assistance information; and analyzing, based on the emergent event, the assistance information to determine the action (col 12, lines 34-45, where guests are the observers who are not caregivers, col 18, lines 15-24).
Regarding claim 7, Aquino et. al. discloses the method of claim 6, further comprising: determining that the action has performed; and deleting the assistance information based on the determination that the action has been performed (col 17, lines 55-60-following image processing, the processor system 220 deletes the raw video frame in order to ensure the privacy of persons under observation by the video monitoring system).
Regarding claim 8 and 16, Aquino et. al. discloses a system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, comprising: one or more camera devices configured to obtain video data of an environment; and an assistance platform configured to: receive the video data of the environment; recognize, based on the video data, an individual out of a plurality of objects in the environment; recognize, based on the video data (Figure 2, 25), one or more characteristics exhibited by the individual; store assistance information to identify the one or more characteristics and a location for the individual (Figure 24); detect whether an event has occurred in the environment; in response to detecting that the event has occurred, retrieve the assistance information; determine, based on the event, at least one characteristic of the one or more characteristics in the assistance information that are to affect ability of the individual to respond to the event; determine, based on the one or more characteristics, an action to be performed to assist the individual; cause the action to be performed to assist the individual (Figure 18-20); and delete the assistance information after causing the action to be performed (col 17, lines 55-60-following image processing, the processor system 220 deletes the raw video frame in order to ensure the privacy of persons under observation by the video monitoring system).
Regarding claim 9, Aquino et. al. discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the individual is a first individual, wherein the one or more characteristics are one or more first characteristics, and wherein the assistance platform is further configured to: recognize, based on the video data, a second individual in the environment; recognize, based on the video data, one or more second characteristics exhibited by the second individual; and update the assistance information to further identify the one or more second characteristics (col 10, lines 36-41, facial recognition processor 315).
Regarding claim 10, Aquino et. al. discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the assistance platform is further configured to: provide a notification based on the assistance information for display, the notification including information related to a second action to assist the second individual (Figure 18, 20).
Regarding claim 11, Aquino et. al. discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the action is a first action, and wherein the assistance platform is further configured to: determine, based on at least one second characteristic of the one or more second characteristics and in response to detecting that the event has occurred, a second action to be performed to assist the second individual; and cause the second action to be performed to assist the second individual (Col 12, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 12, Aquino et. al. discloses the system of claim 11, wherein the one or more first characteristics are different than the one or more second characteristics, and wherein the first action is different than the second action based on the one or more first characteristics being different than the one or more second characteristics (col 11, lines 55-60, rulesets customized for different scenarios, person, and environments).
Regarding claim 14, Aquino et. al. discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the assistance platform is further configured to: determine whether the event can no longer occur or that the individual has left the location where the event could occur; and in response to determining that the event can no longer occur or that the individual has left the location where the event could occur, delete the assistance information (col 17, lines 55-60-following image processing, the processor system 220 deletes the raw video frame in order to ensure the privacy of persons under observation by the video monitoring system, col 20, lines 1-15, if multiple persons are present, and if one person is identified by the processor system as a caretaker, the processor system may end or pause operation with respect to the specific room and person.).
PNG
media_image5.png
378
530
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Aquino et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, based on the at least one characteristic, a proactive action to be performed prior to the emergent event; and causing the proactive action to be performed prior to the emergent event, the proactive action including allocating at least one of equipment or personnel to the environment (Fig. 17B, Col 14, lines 37-45, fall prevention and alert to a caregiver).
PNG
media_image6.png
192
512
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Aquino et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein recognizing the one or more characteristics comprises determining, based on the video data, information relevant to providing assistance in at least one emergent event including the emergent event, the information not including an identity of the individual (Col 12, lines 45-47, In an aspect, the person’s name may be toggled off. Col 22, lines 24-46, detection of a person having a generalized tonic-clonic seizure, or the prevention of pressure ulcers. Here, the weight of the person is used as an alert for the caregiver).
PNG
media_image7.png
494
532
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Aquino et. al. discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the assistance platform is configured to determine, based on at least one second characteristic of the one or more second characteristics and in response to detecting the event, that a second action to assist the second individual is not needed (Col 13, lines 50-61, Col. 14 lines 1-6, posture recognition and motion information with the context of the person is used to determine whether care is further needed. Once the caregiver enters the room, the patent’s status can further direct that no further action is needed, such as if he is lying in bed.).
PNG
media_image8.png
290
522
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aquino et. al. (US Patent 11,282,367 B1) in view of Kim (Korean Patent Application Publication KR 20240074372 A).
Regarding claim 22, Aquino et. al. discloses the method of claim 1. However, Aquino et. al. fails to disclose wherein the emergent event is an evacuation.
Kim teaches wherein the emergent event is an evacuation (Kim Abstract, a system with a server that recognizes the occurrence of an emergency, generates emergency notification information including the location where the emergency occurred and evacuation information). This is important to the claimed invention because it provides adequate response to an emergency that requires the patient to leave their present location. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Aquino et. al. and Kim so that an evacuation procedure is in place.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aquino et. al. (US Patent 11,282,367 B1) in view of Kim (Korean Patent Application Publication KR 20240074372 A) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Groden et. al. (United States Patent Application Publication US 2022/0107640 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Aquino et. al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the at least one characteristic of the one or more characteristics is a mobility restriction. However, Aquino et. al. fails to teach the emergent event is an evacuation; and determining the action to be performed comprises determining, based on the mobility restriction, an assistance equipment to be deployed to the environment of the individual, the assistance equipment to facilitate evacuation of the individual.
Kim et. al. teaches the emergent event is an evacuation. However, Kim et. al. fails to teach and determining the action to be performed comprises determining, based on the mobility restriction, an assistance equipment to be deployed to the environment of the individual, the assistance equipment to facilitate evacuation of the individual.
Groden et. al. teaches and determining the action to be performed comprises determining, based on the mobility restriction, an assistance equipment to be deployed to the environment of the individual, the assistance equipment to facilitate evacuation of the individual (Groden et. al. abstract, method for providing medical services to a patient, including: receiving a medical service request associated with a patient location; selecting an aircraft; [0036] the patient on the aircraft is in a stable condition but has potentially suffered a spinal injury). This is important to the claimed invention because a mobility restriction such as a spinal injury requires immediate medical intervention and further care via air transport to a nearest facility if not already at a hospital. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teachings of Aquino et. al., Kim et. al. and Groden et. al. so that all of these features are shown in the solution to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Response to Amendment
Examiner has considered the amendments to the claims, however after an updated search was performed, new prior art was found to teach the claimed features. These prior art have been used to reject all of the claims as amended.
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 JESSICA YIFANG LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6435. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-6:15pm, with optional day off.
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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/JESSICA YIFANG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2668 May 21, 2026
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights