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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered:
I. Response to Applicant Remarks Regarding Amendments
The Applicant has amended claims 1–20 and added new claim 21. The amendments are noted, and the record reflects these changes.
The Office acknowledges the Applicant’s statements that:
Amendments were made primarily to improve claim form and clarity;
Claims 13 and 20 were amended to conform method and Beaureguard forms;
Claim 21 was newly added and recites features similar to previously allowable claim 8.
The Examiner has reviewed all amendments in the context of patentability requirements under 35 U.S.C. §§101, 112, and nonstatutory double patenting.
II. Response to Allowable Subject Matter Statement
The Applicant notes that claims 8 and 16 were indicated as objectionable dependent claims that could be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
The Office confirms that claim 8 remains allowable as dependent, but all other claims must be evaluated on their individual merit.
Claim 16, as amended, has been examined in light of all statutory requirements.
III. Response to Double Patenting Remarks
The Applicant requests that the double patenting rejections be held in abeyance.
Nonstatutory double patenting rejections of claims 1–7, 9–15, 17–20 over U.S. Patent No. 12,039,850 remain maintained.
Independent claims 1 and 13 remain rejected over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,850.
The request to hold the DP rejection in abeyance is noted. However, issuance of other statutory rejections (§101, §112) does not prevent maintaining the DP rejection.
The newly added claim 21 will be analyzed for nonstatutory double patenting, and a rejection will be issued if appropriate.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7,9-15,17-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4,6-7,9-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,850. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claims 1-4,6-7,9-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,039,850 would encompass the broader claims 1-7,9-15,17-20 of the current application.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the narrower claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 would encompass the broader claims 1 and 13 of the current application.
Current application
U.S. 12,039,850
U.S. 12,354,456
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
2,3,4
6
6
7
7
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
13
1
14
14,15,16
15
15
16
17
17
18
18
19
19
20
20
21
1
1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea of wearable device without significantly more.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to collecting, analyzing, and evaluating sensor data to detect falls and issue alerts without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a wearable device having a fall detection processor, a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and a plurality of sensors, wherein the processor receives fall motion and height signals, issues an alert when a minimum number of sensors indicate a fall, automatically sets the minimum number based on expected activity level, determines sensor configuration, and updates the expected activity level based on actual activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites a generic processor performing routine data analysis and threshold comparisons on sensor data without any improvement to the sensor hardware, wearable device, or fall detection accuracy.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all recited elements are generic sensors, generic processor functionality, and conventional data storage, which merely implement the abstract idea using generic computer components.
Dependent claims 2–12: Each recites adjustments to thresholds, sensor configuration, or processing logic. These limitations are also directed to abstract ideas and do not provide “significantly more” beyond the judicial exception.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to collecting, analyzing, and evaluating sensor data to detect falls and issue alerts without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of storing an expected activity level, receiving fall motion and height signals from sensors, issuing an alert when a minimum number of sensors indicate a fall, automatically setting the minimum number based on expected activity, and updating the expected activity level based on actual activity.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps can be performed as mental processes or routine algorithmic calculations, and the method recites only generic processors and sensors without improving hardware or physical functionality.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all steps are generic data collection, threshold comparison, and alerting operations, which do not transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 14–19: These method-dependent claims add functional adjustments, configuration, or ML/NN processing, which are also directed to abstract ideas and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to collecting, analyzing, and evaluating sensor data to detect falls and issue alerts without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with instructions that cause a wearable device to store an expected activity level, receive fall motion and height signals, issue an alert, automatically set the minimum number of sensors, and update the expected activity level.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely recites software instructions executing standard data-processing and alerting steps on generic hardware without enhancing sensor performance or wearable device functionality.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the instructions are generic software routines performing abstract idea steps.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to collecting, analyzing, and evaluating sensor data to detect falls and issue alerts without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a wearable device with a fall detection processor, non-transitory computer-readable medium, motion and height sensors, wherein the processor issues an alert, updates the predetermined minimum number of sensors based on expected activity, and updates expected activity based on location of the wearer.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because all processing steps are functional algorithms executed on generic hardware and the location-based adjustment is a computational step, not an improvement to the wearable or sensor hardware.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements recited are conventional sensors, processor functions, and data storage performing routine calculations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent Claim 1
Functional limitations include “minimum number of sensors is set automatically,” “fall detection processor determines configuration of sensors,” and “updates expected activity level.”
The scope of these functional terms is unclear.
Conclusion: Rejected under §112(b) as indefinite.
Independent Claim 13
Functional method steps including “issuing an alert” and “determining configuration of sensors” lack boundaries or specific means.
Conclusion: Rejected under §112(b) as indefinite.
Independent Claim 20
Functional medium-encoded steps such as “receive fall motion signal,” “issue an alert,” and “update expected activity level” are indefinite in scope.
Conclusion: Rejected under §112(b) as indefinite.
Independent Claim 21
Functional method steps including “update predetermined minimum number of sensors” and “update expected activity level” are indefinite.
Conclusion: Rejected under §112(b) as indefinite.
Dependent Claims 2–12, 14–19
Functional variations for adjusting thresholds, configuring sensors, or remediating false positives lack clarity.
Conclusion: Rejected under §112(b) as indefinite and also rejected based on the dependency of independent claims 1 and 13, respectively.
Claim limitation:
Claim 1: Claim limitation “machine-learning fall detection processor configured to issue an alert”
Claim 2: Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to alter the minimum number of sensors based, at least in part, on the expected activity level of the wearer”
Claim 3: Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to adjust the individual fall motion threshold or the fall height threshold” in claim 3
Claim 4: Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to turn on or off a sensor in the plurality of sensors”
Claim 5: Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to configure at least one of the plurality of sensors”
Claim 6: Claim limitation “audio processor is further configured to send an impact signal to the fall detection processor”
Claim 7: Claim limitation “gyroscope sensor is further configured to send a tilt signal to the fall detection processor”
Claim 9: Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to use a regression technique, a decision tree, or a decision matrix to help determine the expected activity level of the wearer”
Claim 10: Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to remediate false positive fall signals by isolating a sensor”
Claim 11: Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to use support vector machines (SVM) to calculate a weight factor for evaluation of one or more fall signals”
Claim 21: Claim limitation “fall detection processor is configured to issue an alert, update the predetermined minimum number of sensors, and update the expected activity level based on a location of the wearer”
, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Claim 1
Claim limitation “machine-learning fall detection processor configured to issue an alert” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only recites a generic “processor” without describing any type, kind, hardware, or algorithm for performing the claimed alert function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 2
Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to alter the minimum number of sensors based, at least in part, on the expected activity level of the wearer” in claim 2 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose any structure, material, or acts for performing this function, nor is there a clear link between any disclosed structure and this function. The specification merely recites a processor with no detail about how it alters the minimum number of sensors. Therefore, claim 2 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 3
Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to adjust the individual fall motion threshold or the fall height threshold” in claim 3 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description provides no corresponding structure, material, or algorithm for performing this function, nor is there a clear linkage between the processor and adjustment of thresholds. Therefore, claim 3 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 4
Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to turn on or off a sensor in the plurality of sensors” in claim 4 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. No structure, material, or acts are disclosed for performing this function, and the specification does not link any processor structure to this on/off control. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 5
Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to configure at least one of the plurality of sensors” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification fails to disclose how the processor configures the sensors or what structure performs this configuration. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 6
Claim limitation “audio processor is further configured to send an impact signal to the fall detection processor” in claim 6 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification provides no structure, material, or acts for performing this function, and no linkage between the processor and sending signals is described. Therefore, claim 6 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 7
Claim limitation “gyroscope sensor is further configured to send a tilt signal to the fall detection processor” in claim 7 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. No corresponding structure, material, or acts are disclosed for performing this function, and the specification fails to associate any processor structure with generating tilt signals. Therefore, claim 7 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 9
Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to use a regression technique, a decision tree, or a decision matrix to help determine the expected activity level of the wearer” in claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The written description does not disclose any structure or algorithm for performing this function. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 10
Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to remediate false positive fall signals by isolating a sensor” in claim 10 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. No corresponding structure, material, or acts are disclosed. Therefore, claim 10 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11
Claim limitation “fall detection processor is further configured to use support vector machines (SVM) to calculate a weight factor for evaluation of one or more fall signals” in claim 11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The specification does not describe any structure, material, or algorithm for performing this function. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 21
Claim limitation “fall detection processor is configured to issue an alert, update the predetermined minimum number of sensors, and update the expected activity level based on a location of the wearer” in claim 21 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. No corresponding structure or algorithm is disclosed. Therefore, claim 21 is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The specification of the current application, as filed, does not disclose any specific structure, material, or acts that perform the claimed function of “issuing an alert” by the machine-learning fall detection processor. Similar issue with gyroscope sensor and audio processor. The specification merely recites a generic “processor” and “sensor” without providing any detail as to the type, kind, circuitry, software, algorithm, or other structure that performs the function. No algorithm, logic flow, circuitry, or procedural steps are provided that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what structure or acts accomplish the entirety of the claimed function. Furthermore, there is no clear linkage or association between the disclosed components (e.g., motion sensor, height sensor, database) and the function of issuing an alert. Accordingly, the claim limitation is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the specification fails to provide sufficient disclosure of corresponding structure, material, or acts and fails to clearly associate such structure with the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Allowable Subject Matter
At this time, no claims are in condition for allowance.
However, independent claims 1, 13, 20, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the outstanding rejections set forth in this Office Action:
35 U.S.C. §101 – subject matter eligibility;
35 U.S.C. §112(b) – indefiniteness;
35 U.S.C. §112(f) – functional limitations without disclosed structure and
Nonstatutory double patenting
Dependent claims may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if all outstanding rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights