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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/18/2026 has been entered.
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 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobol (US 10168430) in view of Slavin (US 11412157).
Regarding Claim 1, Sobol discloses a method for locating a 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), however Sobol fails to explicitly disclose the location and localization procedure is determined by a location determiner which is separate from the wearable device, and wherein the fixed radio receiver is fixed relative to a controlled limited physical space and is in communication with the location determiner.
In an analogous art, Slavin discloses a monitoring system that includes a location determiner (monitor control unit item 110, Col. 3, Lines 13-17) which is separate from the wearable device (monitor control unit is separate from a wearable device (beacon device item 122 attached to a target object which may be a person, Col. 5, Lines 14-25 thus separate from monitor control unit also shown as separate in Figure 1) where the location determiner determines the location of the wearable device (monitor control unit communicates with camera, Col.. 3, Lines 13-32, beacon located based on communication with camera, Col. 5, Lines 25-30) and the localization procedure (Monitor control unit determines that none of the cameras are receiving signals from the beacon and determine target is out of range and GPS switched on, Col. 7, Lines 42-47, and Lines 58-66) and wherein the fixed radio receiver is fixed relative to a controlled limited physical space (cameras are installed in fixed locations, Fig 4B shows cameras 204a-204d installed in a property and claim 7 discloses a geofence used with the cameras and monitor control unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the location and localization procedure determined by a location determiner which is separate from the wearable device, and wherein the fixed radio receiver is fixed relative to a controlled limited physical space and is in communication with the location determiner in order to provide a coordinated tracking of objects on a property (Slavin, Col. 1, Lines 53-65).
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 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), however Sobol fails to explicitly disclose the location and localization procedure is determined by a location determiner which is separate from the wearable device, and wherein the fixed radio receiver is fixed relative to a controlled limited physical space and is in communication with the location determiner.
In an analogous art, Slavin discloses a monitoring system that includes a location determiner (monitor control unit item 110, Col. 3, Lines 13-17) which is separate from the wearable device (monitor control unit is separate from a wearable device (beacon device item 122 attached to a target object which may be a person, Col. 5, Lines 14-25 thus separate from monitor control unit also shown as separate in Figure 1) where the location determiner determines the location of the wearable device (monitor control unit communicates with camera, Col.. 3, Lines 13-32, beacon located based on communication with camera, Col. 5, Lines 25-30) and the localization procedure (Monitor control unit determines that none of the cameras are receiving signals from the beacon and determine target is out of range and GPS switched on, Col. 7, Lines 42-47, and Lines 58-66) and wherein the fixed radio receiver is fixed relative to a controlled limited physical space (cameras are installed in fixed locations, Fig 4B shows cameras 204a-204d installed in a property and claim 7 discloses a geofence used with the cameras and monitor control unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the location and localization procedure determined by a location determiner which is separate from the wearable device, and wherein the fixed radio receiver is fixed relative to a controlled limited physical space and is in communication with the location determiner in order to provide a coordinated tracking of objects on a property (Slavin, Col. 1, Lines 53-65).
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), however Sobol fails to explicitly disclose the location and localization procedure is determined by a location determiner which is separate from the wearable device, and wherein the fixed radio receiver is fixed relative to a controlled limited physical space and is in communication with the location determiner.
In an analogous art, Slavin discloses a monitoring system that includes a location determiner (monitor control unit item 110, Col. 3, Lines 13-17) which is separate from the wearable device (monitor control unit is separate from a wearable device (beacon device item 122 attached to a target object which may be a person, Col. 5, Lines 14-25 thus separate from monitor control unit also shown as separate in Figure 1) where the location determiner determines the location of the wearable device (monitor control unit communicates with camera, Col.. 3, Lines 13-32, beacon located based on communication with camera, Col. 5, Lines 25-30) and the localization procedure (Monitor control unit determines that none of the cameras are receiving signals from the beacon and determine target is out of range and GPS switched on, Col. 7, Lines 42-47, and Lines 58-66) and wherein the fixed radio receiver is fixed relative to a controlled limited physical space (cameras are installed in fixed locations, Fig 4B shows cameras 204a-204d installed in a property and claim 7 discloses a geofence used with the cameras and monitor control unit).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the location and localization procedure determined by a location determiner which is separate from the wearable device, and wherein the fixed radio receiver is fixed relative to a controlled limited physical space and is in communication with the location determiner in order to provide a coordinated tracking of objects on a property (Slavin, Col. 1, Lines 53-65).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobol (US 10168430) in view of Slavin (US 11412157) and further 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 Slavin (US 11412157), 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 Slavin (US 11412157) and further 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 with respect to claim(s) 1-19 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.
Conclusion
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