DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are 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 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) 1-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanson et al. [Hanson, US 20120314901].
As to claim 1. Hanson discloses A smart monitoring system, the system comprising:
a plurality of sensor devices, [figs. 1, 2, 0021, 0022, 0041] sensors 115, 113, 116, 128, coupled to appliances and fixtures within a dwelling environment, [fig. 2, 0021, 0043, 0067] installed in a room including doors, at least one of the plurality of sensor devices comprising sensor elements including an accelerometer, [0042]; and
a computing device, image sensing device 110 [0046, 0047, fig. 1], configured to:
receive event signals from the plurality of sensor devices, [0042, 0066, 0088];
identify a possible fall event from one or more of the plurality of sensor device based on the event signals, [0042, 0067, 0088];
sample sensor data from the one or more of the plurality of sensor devices, the sensor data including measurements of movement, [0039, 0041, 0065, 0088] process the sensor data by sampling data readings to determine if a potential fall is detected;
determine a fall has occurred based on the sampled sensor data, [0042, 0067, 0088];
sample additional sensor data from the one or more of the plurality of sensor devices for additional motion at a period of time subsequent to the possible fall event, [0041, 0065, 0067, 0091, 0094] upon detection of the fall event, the system processes other sensor data to determine if the detected impact relates to an actual fall event or false event;
determine a presence of recovery from the fall based on the additional sensor data, [0092, 0094];
generate notifications for an alarm based on the determination of the fall and the presence of recovery, [0070, 0097] fall verification can be performed with an alert when the determination of recovery is No; and
transmit the notifications over a communication network to a client device, [0040, 0097] fall signal sent to a remote station,
wherein the alarm activates a web interface to cause the alarm to display on the client device and to enable a connection from the client device to the computing device, [0097] fall signal sent to a remote station, [0050] over communication network 480; [0034] wherein remote communications are performed over IP-based network or the internet.
As to claim 2. Hanson discloses The system of claim 1 wherein the computing device is further configured to: determine an absence of the recovery from the fall based the additional sensor data; and generate an alert based on the absence of the recovery, [0096, 0097].
As to claim 3. Hanson discloses The system of claim 2 wherein the computing device is further configured to transmit the alert to at least one of a central monitoring location, emergency contact, medical staff, care provider, and a call operator, [0097].
As to claim 4. Hanson discloses The system of claim 1 wherein the sensor data includes real-time measurements of movement, [0065] instantaneous readings.
As to claim 5. Hanson discloses The system of claim 1 wherein the sensor data includes measurements of movement at a time of occurrence of the possible fall event, [0065] instantaneous readings.
As to claim 7. Hanson discloses The system of claim 1 wherein the computing device is further configured to compare the measurements of movement within a given time window with one or more patterns, [0009, 0049, 0051].
As to claim 8. Hanson discloses The system of claim 7 wherein the one or more patterns correspond to movements associated with events selected from the group consisting of: a fall with recovery, a fall without recovery, or non-fall events, [0104, 0105].
As to claim 9. Hanson discloses The system of claim 1 wherein the appliances and fixtures are selected from the group consisting of a toilet, a door, a window, a refrigerator, a television remote, and a medicine cabinet, [0044, 0047, 0100].
As to claim 11. Hanson discloses The system of claim 9 wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive the event signals from a sensor device coupled to the door, [0047]; and determine an opening or closing of the door based on the event signals from the sensor device coupled to the door, [0047].
As to claim 12. Hanson discloses The system of claim 9 wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive the event signals from a sensor device coupled to the window, [0047]; and determine an opening or closing of the window based on the event signals from the sensor device coupled to the window, [0047].
As to claim 16. Hanson discloses A smart monitoring system, the system comprising: a processor, processor 111; and a memory, memory 112, [fig. 1], having executable instructions stored thereon that when executed by the processor cause the processor to perform the steps, [0022], claimed in claim 1 and rejected in detail above.
As to claim 17 is rejected with the same prior art and reasoning as to that of claim 16.
As to claims 18-19 are rejected with the same prior art and reasoning as to that of claims 2-3, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of Shinkle et al. [Shinkle, US 20170168095].
As to claim 6. Hanson fails to disclose The system of claim 1 wherein the measurements of movement comprise a delta sum of absolute displacement values of movement along a plurality of coordinate axis.
Shinkle teaches a system to measure a distance based on the sum of incremental changes in position in time, [0029].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hanson with that of Shinkle so that the system can save on processing time by only using incremental distance changes to determine if a fall occurred and avoiding to measure distance continuously.
As to claim 20 is rejected with the same prior art and reasoning as to that of claim 6.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of Uchida et al. [Uchida, US 6696956].
As to claim 10. Hanson discloses The system of claim 9 wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive the event signals from a sensor device coupled to a bathroom, [0044]; and determine a usage of the toilet based on the event signals from the sensor device coupled to the bathroom, [0044].
Hanson fails to disclose that the sensor is coupled to a handle of the toilet, and the usage is flushing.
Uchida teaches an emergency dispatching system wherein the system uses a sensor on the handle of a toilet to detect flushing to determine if a monitored person is unable to move, [col. 7, line 65 – col. 8, line 5; col. 8, lines 51-56].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hanson with that of Uchida so that the system can use the use of a toilet to determine if the person recovered from a detected fall.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of Annegarn et al. [Annegarn, US 20200046262].
As to claim 13. Hanson fails to disclose The system of claim 9 wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive the event signals from a sensor device coupled to the refrigerator; and determine an opening or closing of the refrigerator based on the event signals from the sensor device coupled to the refrigerator.
Annegarn teaches a method and apparatus for determining a fall risk wherein the system implements sensors coupled to a refrigerator for determining an opening or closing of the refrigerator door, [0056].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hanson with that of Annegarn so that the system can determine recovery if the refrigerator door is opened after detecting a fall.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of Seol et al. [Seol, US 20170277281].
As to claim 14. Hanson fails to disclose The system of claim 9 wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive the event signals from a sensor device coupled to the television remote; and determine watching of a television based on the event signals from the sensor device coupled to the television remote.
Seol teaches a television remote controller 200 that can measure with an acceleration sensor to measure the movement of the remote controller, [0085]; wherein the system communicates with a user mobile device when movement is detected at the remote controller, [0180, 0181]].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hanson with that of Seol so that the system can determine recovery if the remote controller detected a movement after detecting a fall
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of Tran [US 20070265533].
As to claim 15. Hanson fails to disclose The system of claim 9 wherein the computing device is further configured to: receive the event signals from a sensor device coupled to the medicine cabinet; and determine an individual taking medicine based on the event signals from the sensor device coupled to the medicine cabinet.
Tran teaches a system for monitoring and preventing falls, [0025], wherein the system implements the use of sensors to detect opening and closing of a medicine cabinet, [claim 11].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hanson with that of Tran so that the system can determine recovery if the cabinet door is opened after detecting a fall.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20, respectively of U.S. Patent No. 10827951. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims of the current application encompasses all the scope of the corresponding claims of the patent.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENYAM HAILE whose telephone number is (571)272-2080. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 5:30 PM Mon. - Thur..
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.
/Benyam Haile/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688