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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to communications filed February 16, 2026. Claims 5 and 10-13 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barash et al. (Barash; US Pub No. 2011/0117878 A1).
As per claim 11, Barash discloses a computing device comprising:
an input device (Fig. 2C, Lay Response Server 290: receiving data);
an output device (Fig. 2C, Lay Response Server 290: outputting data);
processing circuitry (Fig. 6, Processor 602); and
a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to (paragraph [0146]):
correlate availability and location information received via the input device from computing services running in a plurality of devices across at least one computer network (paragraph [0054], lines 3-8; paragraph [0055]), wherein at least one of the devices comprises a device of a patient that is configured to send an alert of a health event of the patient (paragraph [0041]), and wherein at least one of the devices comprises a device of a responder that is configured to receive the alert of the health event of the patient (Fig. 1, Lay Responder 104A, Smart Phone 110, Textual Report 116);
generate an activity profile of the responder based on the correlated information, wherein the activity profile comprises likely activities of the responder based on time data (paragraph [0182]: estimated time of arrival of responder to patient);
based on the activity profile of the responder, determine a level of responsiveness in event of the alert of the health event (Fig. 5: creating a radius around a victim and identifying the distance of each responder to the victim); and
communicate, via the output device, information of the level of responsiveness to the responder via the device of the responder (paragraph [0082]: location of responder relative to the victim).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran (US Pub No. 2008/0001735 A1) in view of Messenger (US Pub No. 2016/0357235 A1).
As per claim 1, Tran teaches a first computing device comprising:
processing circuitry (paragraph [0010], line 8); and
a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to (paragraph [0010], lines 8-9):
… a second computing device of at least one of a patient or a responder (paragraph [0009], lines 16-20: heartbeat messages; paragraph [0014], lines 10-14: patient or responder device; paragraph [0198], lines 1-5: sending collected data to a second computing device), the set of… messages comprising requests for the patient or the responder to provide user input that causes the second computing device to send response messages that are respectively in response to the set of… messages (paragraph [0066], lines 22-25);
generate, based at least in part on the set of… messages and the set of response messages, an activity profile of the at least one of the patient or the responder that indicates a level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to an acute health event of the patient (paragraphs [0402] & [0404]: send data to responder, the responder prompts patient to perform tasks, then a diagnosis is generated based upon the patient data and the patient responses); and
perform at least one operation based at least in part on the level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to the acute health event (paragraph [0406]: provide a treatment based upon the diagnosis).
Tran does not expressly teach at least one of periodically or asynchronously send heartbeat messages to a second computing device… the set of heartbeat messages comprising requests… that causes the second computing device to send response messages that are respectively in response to the set of heartbeat messages;
generate, based at least in part on the set of heartbeat messages and the set of response messages.
Messenger teaches at least one of periodically or asynchronously send heartbeat messages to a second computing device (paragraph [0141])… the set of heartbeat messages comprising requests (paragraph [0141]: reciprocal message transmission)… that causes the second computing device to send response messages that are respectively in response to the set of heartbeat messages (paragraph [0141]: reciprocal message transmission);
generate, based at least in part on the set of heartbeat messages and the set of response messages (paragraph [0141]: reciprocal message transmission).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effective filed to implement the heartbeat messages as taught by Messenger, since Messenger states in paragraph [0141] that such a modification would result in confirming continued systemic connectivity and stability between devices.
As per claim 2, Tran in view of Messenger further teaches the first computing device of claim 1, wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
determine an amount of time that elapses between a particular heartbeat message and the response message (Messenger, paragraphs [0141] & [0142]: heartbeat messages sent every second and timestamped), wherein the level of responsiveness is correlated to the amount of time that elapses between a particular heartbeat message and the response message (Tran, paragraph [0067], lines 1-16).
As per claim 6, Tran in view Messenger further teaches the first computing device of claim 1, wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
in response to determining from the activity profile that the level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to the acute health event does not satisfy a threshold, send a notification to the patient or responder to change their behavior in a way that increases their corresponding level of responsiveness (Tran, paragraph [0013]: providing feedback to a patient to encourage health habits to increase patient’s overall health based on received patient data).
As per claim 8, Tran in view of Messenger further teaches the first computing device of claim 1, wherein to generate the activity profile to predict a likely activity of the patient at time data, the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
identify, from the activity profile, responsive actions to the set of heartbeats; and
correlate the responsive actions with the set of response messages to determine a measure of responsiveness of the patient to the set of heartbeats (The additional features of claim 8 represent a non-technical mathematical method defined in such vague terms that no technical effect can be derived from them over their whole scope. In particular, the claim does not define in technical terms what is implied by the words “identify” and “correlate”).
As per claim 12, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a method for operating processing circuitry comprising:
at least one of periodically or asynchronously sending heartbeat messages to a computing device of at least one of a patient or a responder, the set of heartbeat messages comprising requests for the patient or the responder to provide user input that causes the computing device to send response messages that are respectively in response to the set of heartbeat messages;
generating, based at least in part on the set of heartbeat messages and the set of response messages, an activity profile of the at least one of the patient or the responder that indicates a level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to an acute health event of the patient; and
performing at least one operation based at least in part on the level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to the acute health event.
As per claim 13, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a method for operating processing circuitry of a computing system comprising:
sending, over a network, a heartbeat message to a computing device a computing device of a human user, wherein the heartbeat message corresponds to a connection check with the computing device of the human user (Messenger, paragraph [0141]), and wherein the heartbeat message comprises a request for the human user to provide user input that causes the computing device to send a response message that is in response to the heartbeat message; and
receiving, over the network, response message to the heartbeat, wherein the reply comprises an indication of a stable connection between the computing system and the computing device (Messenger, paragraph [0141]) and the computing device of the human user (Messenger, paragraph [0022]), and wherein the response message is indicative of an availability of the human user in event of an acute health event of a patient.
As per claim 14, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a system comprising processing circuitry configured to:
at least one of periodically or asynchronously send heartbeat messages to a computing device of at least one of a patient or a responder, the set of heartbeat messages comprising requests for the patient or the responder to provide user input that causes the computing device to send response messages that are respectively in response to the set of heartbeat messages;
generate, based at least in part on the set of heartbeat messages and the set of response messages, an activity profile of the at least one of the patient or the responder that indicates a level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to an acute health event of the patient; and
perform at least one operation based at least in part on the level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to the acute health event.
As per claim 15, (see rejection of claim 1 above) a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising program instructions configured to cause processing circuitry to:
at least one of periodically or asynchronously send heartbeat messages to a computing device of at least one of a patient or a responder, the set of heartbeat messages comprising requests for the patient or the responder to provide user input that causes the computing device to send response messages that are respectively in response to the set of heartbeat messages;
generate, based at least in part on the set of heartbeat messages and the set of response messages, an activity profile of the at least one of the patient or the responder that indicates a level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to an acute health event of the patient; and
perform at least one operation based at least in part on the level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to the acute health event.
Claim(s) 3-5, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran in view Messenger as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barash.
As per claim 3, Tran in view of Messenger teaches the first computing device of claim 1.
Tran in view of Messenger does not expressly teach wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
output, to a third device or the second computing device of the at least one of the patient or the responder, content data for rendering a map that displays the level of responsiveness of one or more responders proximate to the patient.
Barash teaches wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
output, to a third device or the second computing device of the at least one of the patient or the responder, content data for rendering a map that displays the level of responsiveness of one or more responders proximate to the patient (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the producing a map as taught by Barash, since Barash states in paragraph [0135] that such a modification would result in dispatching the responder who is the best candidate for responding to the detected event.
As per claim 4, Tran in view of Messenger teaches the first computing device of claim 1.
Tran in view of Messenger does not expressly teach wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
in response to the first computing device detecting the acute health event, select one or more responders, each of which with a level of responsiveness that is greater than a threshold, and send a notification to each of the one or more responders to provide care to the patient experiencing the acute health event.
Barash teaches wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
in response to the first computing device detecting the acute health event, select one or more responders, each of which with a level of responsiveness that is greater than a threshold, and send a notification to each of the one or more responders to provide care to the patient experiencing the acute health event (paragraphs [0135] – [0136]: within a predetermined radius, estimated time to arrival).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the producing a map as taught by Barash, since Barash states in paragraph [0135] that such a modification would result in dispatching the responder who is the best candidate for responding to the detected event.
As per claim 5, Tran in view of Messenger teaches the first computing device of claim 1.
Tran in view of Messenger does not expressly teach wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
select the one or more responders based on a distance between each responder and the patient or availability and connectivity information of the second computing device.
Barash teaches wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
select the one or more responders based on a distance between each responder and the patient or availability and connectivity information of the second computing device (paragraphs [0135] – [0136]: within a predetermined radius, estimated time to arrival).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the producing a map as taught by Barash, since Barash states in paragraph [0135] that such a modification would result in dispatching the responder who is the best candidate for responding to the detected event.
As per claim 7, Tran in view of Messenger teaches the first computing device of claim 1.
Tran in view of Messenger does not expressly teach wherein to perform the at least one operation, the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
in response to determining from the activity profile that the level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to the acute health event does not satisfy a threshold, send a notification to each person with whom the patient has a social relationship of a lack of responsiveness from the patient.
Barash teaches wherein to perform the at least one operation, the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
in response to determining from the activity profile that the level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to the acute health event does not satisfy a threshold, send a notification to each person with whom the patient has a social relationship of a lack of responsiveness from the patient (paragraphs [0067], [0135] & {0136]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the producing a map as taught by Barash, since Barash states in paragraph [0135] that such a modification would result in dispatching the responder who is the best candidate for responding to the detected event.
As per claim 9, Tran in view of Messenger teaches the first computing device of claim 1.
Tran in view of Messenger does not expressly teach wherein one or more of the set of response messages comprises at least one of connectivity and location information of the patient or availability and location information of the responder.
Barash teaches wherein one or more of the set of response messages comprises at least one of connectivity and location information of the patient or availability and location information of the responder (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the producing a map as taught by Barash, since Barash states in paragraph [0135] that such a modification would result in dispatching the responder who is the best candidate for responding to the detected event.
Claim(s) 10 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barash in view of MacGabann (US Pub No. 2019/0313230 A1).
As per claim 10, Barash teaches a computing device comprising:
an input device (Fig. 2C, Lay Response Server 290: receiving data);
an output device (Fig. 2C, Lay Response Server 290: outputting data);
processing circuitry (Fig. 6, Processor 602); and
a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to (paragraph [0146]):
correlate connectivity and location information received via the input device from computing services running in a plurality of devices across at least one computer network (paragraph [0054], lines 3-8; paragraph [0055])…
generate an activity profile of the patient based on the correlated information, wherein the activity profile comprises likely activities of the patient based on time data (paragraph [0011], lines 3-6);
based on the activity profile of the patient, determine a level of responsiveness in event of the alert of the health event (paragraph [0011], lines 3-4; paragraph [0118], lines 1-15).
Barash does not expressly teach wherein at least one of the devices comprises a device of a patient that is configured to send an alert of a health event of the patient to at least one other device of the plurality of devices… and
communicate, via the output device, information of the level of responsiveness to the patient via the device of the patient.
MacGabann teaches wherein at least one of the devices comprises a device of a patient that is configured to send an alert of a health event of the patient to at least one other device of the plurality of devices (paragraph [0036], lines 1-3; paragraph [0065]; paragraph [0124], lines 5-14: direct communication between rescue application 105 and responder application 135)… and
communicate, via the output device, information of the level of responsiveness to the patient via the device of the patient (paragraphs [0062] & [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the user computing device, responder computing device and network as taught by MacGabann, since MacGabann states in paragraph [0065] that such a modification would result in beneficial direct communication between a responder and a victim.
As per claim 16, Barash in view MacGabann further teaches the computing device of claim 10, wherein at least one of a medical device or the second computing device of the patient is configured to send an alert of the acute health event of the patient to the first computing device (Barash, paragraphs [0041] & [0042]: victim device reporting emergency event to central service),
wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to (Barash, paragraph [0146]):
responsive to the alert of the health event, identify one or more responders for the patient based a proximity of each responder to a location of the patient (Barash, paragraph [0118]: establish responders within a radius around a victim); and
communicate, to each of the one or more responders, the information of the level of responsiveness to the patient via a device of that responder (Barash, paragraph [0083], lines 9-11).
As per claim 17, Barash in view MacGabann further teaches the computing device of claim 10, wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
generate a set of rules configured to determine the level of responsiveness of the patient based on time data and the activity profile (Barash, paragraph [0011], lines 3-6: identify responders within a vicinity based on a victim’s identified critical event), wherein the activity profile is configured to identify a likely activity of the patient for the time data (Barash, paragraph [0041]: identifying event type);
determine the level of responsiveness of the patient based on an application of the set of rules to patient data (Barash, paragraph [0011], lines 3-6: identify responders within a vicinity based on a victim’s identified critical event); and
communicate content for display on a display device to the patient via the device of the patient or to at least one second person via each respective device of the at least one second person (MacGabann, Fig. 1A, Network 115, User Computing Device 110).
As per claim 18, Barash in view MacGabann further teaches the computing device of claim 10, wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
communicate, via the output device, the information of the level of responsiveness to a person different from the patient in response to determining that the level of responsiveness fails to satisfy a threshold (Barash, paragraph [0118] & [0119]: notifying a responder that they fall outside a radius or will not arrive within an estimated amount of time);
identify a responder for the patient based on the determining that the level of responsiveness fails to satisfy the threshold (Barash, paragraph [0118]: identify responders within a radius and outside a radius); and
responsive to the alert of the health event from the device of the patient, communicate a notification to at least one of the patient, one or more responders including the identified responder, or the person different from the patient (Barash, Fig. 1, Smart Phone 110, Textual Report 116, Responder 104A).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barash in view of MacGabann as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Mehta et al. (Mehta; US Pub No. 2017/0251347 A1).
As per claim 19, Barash in view MacGabann teaches the computing device of claim 18.
Barash in view MacGabann does not expressly teach wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
determine that the patient and the device of the patient are in different locations; and
communicate a notification to the responder that the patient is not in possession of the device of the patient.
Mehta teaches wherein the memory further comprises instructions that cause the processing circuitry to:
determine that the patient and the device of the patient are in different locations (paragraph [0125], lines 15-31); and
communicate a notification to the responder that the patient is not in possession of the device of the patient (paragraph [0125], lines 15-31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the communication session as taught by Mehta, since Mehta states in paragraph [0125] that such a modification would result in allowing a third party to call for assistance for an incapacitated person.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barash in view Messenger.
As per claim 20, Barash teaches the computing device of claim 11.
Barash does not expressly teach wherein memory further comprises instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
for a sequence of messages,
send, over a network, a message for verifying a connection with the responder via the device of the responder, and
receive, over the network, a response message in reply to the message, wherein the message comprises a confirmation of the connection between the computing device and the device of the responder.
Messenger teaches wherein memory further comprises instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry to:
for a sequence of messages (paragraph [0141]),
send, over a network, a message for verifying a connection with the responder via the device of the responder (paragraph [0141]), and
receive, over the network, a response message in reply to the message, wherein the message comprises a confirmation of the connection between the computing device and the device of the responder (paragraph [0141]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effective filed to implement the heartbeat messages as taught by Messenger, since Messenger states in paragraph [0141] that such a modification would result in confirming continued systemic connectivity and stability between devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's other arguments filed February 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of Barash does not teach the claim limitation “based on the activity profile of the responder, determine a level of responsiveness in event of the alert of the health event” (Remarks, pg. 10), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As outlined in the above rejection of claim 11, Barash teaches an estimated time of arrival of a responder to a patient. The claimed activity profile is the ETA as the likely activities are what time the responder is likely to reach the patient. Therefore, the prior art of Barash discloses the limitations of claim 11 as outlined above.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of Messenger does not teach “send heartbeat messages to a second computing device of at least one of a patient or a responder, the set of heartbeat messages” or “generate, based at least in part on the set of heartbeat messages and the set of response messages, an activity profile of the at least one of the patient or the responder that indicates a level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder that indicates a level of responsiveness of the patient or the responder to respond to an acute health event of the patient” (Remarks, pg. 13), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Messenger is combined with the prior art of Tran to teach reciprocal communication as outlined in the rejection above. Therefore, the combination of Tran in view of Messenger teaches the claim limitations as outlined in the above rejection.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (see Remarks, pg. 14), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Barash teaches a patient experiencing a cardiac event at a particular time and location. A responder’s estimated time of arrival is based upon the patient and how likely the responder will arrive within time to assist the patient experiencing the cardiac event. Therefore, the prior art of Barash teaches the claim limitations of independent claim 10 as outlined above.
The above arguments are applied to independent claims 1, 10, 12, 14 and 15, and additionally to dependent claims 2-9 and 16-20.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights