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 § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sobol (US 10168430).
Regarding Claim 1, Sobol discloses a method for locating a wearable device, the method being performed by a location determiner being separate from the wearable device, the method comprising: determining a selected localization procedure to be a first localization procedure or a second localization procedure (select BLE or GPS, Col. 4, Lines 37-53), wherein the selected localization procedure is determined to be the first localization procedure based on a fixed radio receiver detecting a beacon signal from the wearable device (Beacons and BLE, Col. 5, Lines 22-46), and wherein the selected localization procedure is determined to be the second localization procedure based on the fixed radio receiver failing to detect a beacon signal from the wearable device (beacon not able to communicate then use GPS, Col. 6, Lines 48-65); and determining a location indication of the wearable device based on the selected localization procedure (calculate location and track patient, Col. 4, Lines 37- Col. 5, Line 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Sobol further discloses method according to claim 1, wherein the second localization procedure is based on the wearable device localizing itself (device uses GPS, Col. 4, Lines 37-67), and wherein the determining the location indication comprises receiving the location indication from the wearable device ( location sent to CPU from device, Col. 4, Lines 37-67).
Regarding Claim 9, Sobol discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the second localization procedure is a localization procedure that is suitable for outdoor localization (GPS is suitable for outdoor localization, Col. 4, Lines 37-67).
Regarding Claim 10, Sobol discloses the method according to claim 9, wherein the second localization procedure is based on satellite-based location determination (GPS is satellite based, Col. 4, Lines 37-67).
Regarding Claim 11, Sobol discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the beacon signal, for the first localization procedure, is a Bluetooth Low Energy, BLE, beacon signal (BLE, Col. 4, Lines 15-36).
Regarding Claim 12, Sobol discloses a location determiner for locating a wearable device, the location determiner being separate from the wearable device, the location determiner comprising: processing circuitry; and memory circuitry storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the location determiner to (processor and instructions thus memory, Col. 4, Lines 15-36): determine a selected localization procedure to be a first localization procedure or a second localization procedure (select BLE or GPS, Col. 4, Lines 37-53), wherein the selected localization procedure is determined to be the first localization procedure based on a fixed radio receiver detecting a beacon signal from the wearable device (Beacons and BLE, Col. 5, Lines 22-46), and wherein the selected localization procedure is determined to be the second localization procedure based on the fixed radio receiver failing to detect a beacon signal from the wearable device (beacon not able to communicate then use GPS, Col. 6, Lines 48-65); and determine a location indication of the wearable device based on the selected localization procedure (calculate location and track patient, Col. 4, Lines 37- Col. 5, Line 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Sobol discloses a location determiner according to claim 12, wherein the second localization procedure is based on the wearable device localizing itself (device uses GPS, Col. 4, Lines 37-67), and wherein the instructions to determine the location indication comprise instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, cause the location determiner to receive the location indication from the wearable device (location sent to CPU from device, Col. 4, Lines 37-67).
Regarding Claim 19, Sobol discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for locating a wearable device, the computer program comprising computer program code which, when executed on a location determiner separate from the wearable device, causes the location determiner to: determine a selected localization procedure to be a first localization procedure or a second localization procedure (select BLE or GPS, Col. 4, Lines 37-53), wherein the selected localization procedure is determined to be the first localization procedure based on a fixed radio receiver detecting a beacon signal from the wearable device (Beacons and BLE, Col. 5, Lines 22-46), and wherein the selected localization procedure is determined to be the second localization procedure based on the fixed radio receiver failing to detect a beacon signal from the wearable device (beacon not able to communicate then use GPS, Col. 6, Lines 48-65); and determine a location indication of the wearable device based on the selected localization procedure (calculate location and track patient, Col. 4, Lines 37- Col. 5, Line 1).
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.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobol (US 10168430) in view of Kim et al. (US 20110300875).
Regarding Claims 3 and 14, Sobol further discloses obtaining a geofence for the wearable device (authorized area, Col. 5, Line 47-Col. 6, Line 4); determining a distance indication between the wearable device and the geofence (predetermined range, Col. 5, Line 47-Col. 6, Line 4); however Sobol fail to discloses determining a location update time based on the distance indication, the location update time indicating when a subsequent location indication is to be determined and transmitted from the wearable device based on the second localization procedure; and transmitting the location update time to the wearable device.
In an analogous art, Kim et al. discloses determining a location update time based on the distance indication, the location update time indicating when a subsequent location indication is to be determined and transmitted from the wearable device based on the second localization procedure; and transmitting the location update time to the wearable device (LBA requests GPS sensing interval which is interpreted to be the same as the claimed transmitted location update time, Paragraph 129).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determine a location update time based on the distance and transmit that timing in order to allow the device to sleep and conserve energy (Kim et al., Paragraph 129).
Claims 4-6 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobol (US 10168430) in view of Kim et al. (US 20110300875) and further in view of Sheshadri et al. (US 20130295970).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, Sobol discloses the wearable device and geofence (Col. 5, Line 47-Col. 6, Line 4), however Sobol fails to disclose determining a velocity indication of the wearable device, the velocity indication comprising a speed and direction of movement of the wearable device; and wherein the determining the location update time is based also on the velocity of the wearable device.
In an analogous art, Sheshadri et al. discloses disclose determining a velocity indication of the wearable device, the velocity indication comprising a speed and direction of movement of the wearable device (Paragraph 59); and wherein the determining the location update time is based also on the velocity of the wearable device (Paragraph 59).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determine a velocity of the device with speed and direction, and determine an update time based on the velocity in order to reduce the probability of missing the geofence due to the motion of the device (Sheshadri et al., Paragraph 59).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Sobol further discloses a geofence (Col. 5, Line 47-Col. 6, Line 4), however Sobol fails to disclose determining the velocity indication is based on multiple location indications received from the wearable device.
In an analogous art, Sheshadri et al. discloses determining the velocity indication is based on multiple location indications received from the wearable device (previous GPS fixes used where at least two points are needed to determine a direction, Paragraph 64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the velocity indication based on multiple location indications received from the wearable device in order to determine a difference which would indicate a direction and also allow for continuous monitoring over a period of time which would require multiple locations to be recorded.
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Sobol discloses an accelerometer (Col. 4, Lines 5-9) however Sobol fails to disclose the velocity indication is based on accelerometer readings from the wearable device.
In an analogous art, Sheshadri et al. discloses a velocity indication is based on accelerometer readings from the wearable device (Paragraph 64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an accelerometer to determine the velocity indication as an accelerometer is a standard electronic measuring tool used in sensor environments to output a speed and direction.
Claims 7, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobol (US 10168430) in view of Ady et al. (US 20190141485).
Regarding Claims 7 and 18, Sobol further discloses determining that an alarm has been triggered using the wearable device (button to generate alert, Col. 3, Lines 42-44); however Sobol fails to disclose transmitting a location update command to the wearable device, causing the wearable device to increase a frequency of location updates based on the second localization procedure.
In an analogous art, Ady et al. discloses transmitting a location update command to the wearable device, causing the wearable device to increase a frequency of location updates based on the second localization procedure (location update frequency updated and high location resolution when in alarm state, Paragraphs 54 and 123-126).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increase the frequency of location updates to increase the safety and provide additional information to the party viewing the location to ensure medical services proceed to the proper location (Ady et al., Paragraph 123).
Regarding Claim 8, Sobol further discloses determining that a health measurement from the wearable device indicates an abnormal health condition (Col. 3, Lines 45-48); however Sobol fails to disclose transmitting a location update command to the wearable device, causing the wearable device to increase a frequency of location updates based on the second localization procedure.
In an analogous art, Ady et al. discloses transmitting a location update command to the wearable device, causing the wearable device to increase a frequency of location updates based on the second localization procedure (location update frequency updated and high location resolution when in alarm state where an abnormal health condition is an alert condition, Paragraphs 54 and 123-126).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have increase the frequency of location updates during an abnormal health condition to increase the safety and provide additional information to the party viewing the location to ensure medical services proceed to the proper location (Ady et al., Paragraph 123).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference fails to disclose “a beacon from the wearable device”, examiner disagrees because the cited portion of Sobol, Col. 5, Lines 22-46, states that device 20 may communicate with the central processing unit or through beacons. In further explanation of this, Col. 5, Lines 31-35 state that the wearable device pairs with a smartphone and then through one beacon once active. Col. 5, Lines 41-45 of Sobol discloses the beacon may be a smartphone as well. Thus the communication from device 20 through the beacon item 66 which may be the smartphone would be interpreted as the broadly claimed beacon signal from the wearable device as the generation of the signal is not explicitly claimed and the claimed limitations only state the signal is from the wearable device but not how that beacon is generated. Furthermore Sobol also discloses beacons as argued by applicant as device 20 contains a circuit board which contains a BLE chip which monitors the patient’s movements and transmits them using antenna thus beacons as argued (Col. 4, Lines 15-16, Col. 4, Lines 37-45). Regarding applicant’s argument that Sobol fails to disclose “the selected localization procedure is determined to be the second localization procedure based on the fixed radio receiver failing to detect a beacon signal from the wearable device”, Examiner disagrees because Sobol states in Col. 6, Lines 59-62, “when device 20 travels outside predetermined area 68, device 20 will continue to monitor the location of patient 62 via GPS instead of BLE” which meets the limitations of the claim as broadly interpreted and claimed. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “by a location determiner separate from the wearable device”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore the claims are rejected for the reasons above in the final rejection.
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 Steven Lim whose telephone number is (571)270-1210. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays 9am-5pm, Tuesday-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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights