DETAILED ACITON
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 Status
Claims 1-26 are pending for examination.
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.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, recite the limitation "said data processor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claims appear to depend on claim 4 instead of claim 1. For the propose of examination, claims 5 and 6 depend on claim 4 for proper antecedent basis.
Please review and amend according.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Andrews (Pat. No.: US 11,967,217 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Andrews teaches a wearable device for predicting bodily falls (Abstract, Fig. 1, wearable monitor group 2), the device comprising:
a first sensor band dimensioned to be worn about a first limb of a living being; and
a second sensor band dimensioned to be worn about a second limb of the living being (Fig. 2, col 2 line 58-59, “Bands or belts can be used to constrain the sensors 21-25 to the relative user's body regions as shown in FIG. 1.”. Ankle band includes sensor 23 and wrist band includes sensor 25);
each of said first and second sensor bands comprising:
at least one sensor operatively configured to collect sensor data associated with band movement (Col. 2 line 40 – 55, “the third sensor 23 is configured to detect the position of the user's lower limbs in relation to the parts of the torso.” and “a fifth sensor 25 configured to be attached to one or both user's upper limbs to detect the user's upper limb(s) position.”); and
a transceiver configured to transmit data from said at least one sensor via wireless data transmission (Fig. 1, Col. 3 line 19-23, “Various known technologies—such as Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, Magnetic field detection, Near Field Communication (NFC), ultra-wideband, cable connection, and more—can be used to transmit data from the wearable monitoring group 2 to the processing module 3.”.).
Regarding claim 2, Andrews teaches the wearable device of claim 1, wherein each of said first and second sensor bands comprises a mounting body configured to mount the respective sensor band to a respective limb of the living being (Col. 2 line 58-62, “Bands or belts can be used to constrain the sensors 21-25 to the relative user's body regions as shown in FIG. 1. Alternatively, the sensors 21-25 can be integrated into a garment such as a T-shirt, pants, or a full-body suit as shown in FIG. 2.”).
Regarding claim 7, Andrews teaches the wearable device of claim 1, further comprising a feedback device operable to provide at least one of a haptic, an audible and a visible alert signal to the living being (Col. 4 line 49-44, “Preferably, the vibrators are integrated into the wearable monitoring group. The biofeedback elements—in addition to or in place of the vibrators—can comprise acoustic sources configured to provide the feedback signal to the user in the form of a directional sound.”).
Regarding claim 8, Andrews teaches the wearable device of claim 1, wherein said feedback device comprises at least one of a speaker, a vibratory motor, and a lamp (Col. 4 line 49-44, “Preferably, the vibrators are integrated into the wearable monitoring group. The biofeedback elements—in addition to or in place of the vibrators—can comprise acoustic sources configured to provide the feedback signal to the user in the form of a directional sound.”).
Regarding claim 9, Andrews teaches a system for predicting bodily falls (Fig. 1, fall detection system 1), the system comprising:
a first sensor band dimensioned to be worn about a wrist of a living being;
a second sensor band dimensioned to be worn about an ankle of the living being;
each of said first and second sensor bands comprising:
at least one sensor configured to collected data associated with band movement;
a transceiver operatively configured to transmit data from said at least one sensor via a communications network (Rejection is similar to claim 1); and
an external computing device (Fig. 1 – Fig. 3, processing module 3) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 3, processor 31);
a communications device configured to receive sensor data via the communications network (Fig. 1- Fig. 3, Col. 3 line 16-18, “The risk of fall detection system 1 also comprises a processing module 3 in signal communication with the wearable monitoring group 2 to receive the posture data.”. The processing module 3 include a communication unit to receive data from the sensors);
a memory (Fig. 3, memory 30); and
instructions stored in said memory and executable by said processor to analyze sensor data received from said first and second sensor bands to determine whether the sensor data is predictive of imminent ambulation of the living being (Col. 3 line 31-39, “The risk of fall indicator parameter is computed from the relative position of at least the lower part of user's torso, upper part of user's torso, and user's lower limb(s) detected by the first, second and third sensor, respectively. Preferably, the risk of fall indicator parameter is computed also considering the position of the user's head and/or user's upper limb detected by the fourth and/or fifth sensors, respectively. Advantageously, this allows to take in to account the head and/or upper limb cantilever effects.”. The processing module analyzes the data from the sensors to determine the risk of a fall.).
Regarding claim 10, Andrews teaches the system of claim 9, wherein said data processor is configured to process said sensor data to analyze each sensor band's sensor data in relation to the other sensor band's sensor data (Col. 3 line 31-39, “The risk of fall indicator parameter is computed from the relative position of at least the lower part of user's torso, upper part of user's torso, and user's lower limb(s) detected by the first, second and third sensor, respectively. Preferably, the risk of fall indicator parameter is computed also considering the position of the user's head and/or user's upper limb detected by the fourth and/or fifth sensors, respectively. Advantageously, this allows to take in to account the head and/or upper limb cantilever effects.”. The processing module analyzes the relative positions of the sensors to determine the risk of fall).
Regarding claim 11, Andrews teaches the system of claim 9, wherein said data processor is configured to process said sensor data and to cause transmission of a control signal via the communications device to a device monitored by a caregiver to prompt the caregiver to deliver an intervention when the sensor data indicates that ambulation of the living being is imminent (Col. 4 line 17-23, “The risk of fall detection system 1 can be used to warn the user that is getting close to a posture which dramatically increases the risk of fall in enough time to allow the user to make a corrective action that immediately reduces this risk. It also records these incidents to warn of their increasing frequency to warn the physician and caregiver of the increasing Risk of Falls of the patient.”. The processing module 3 alerts the caregiver about an increase of risk of fall.).
Regarding claim 12, Andrews teaches the system of claim 11, wherein said device is a computing device operable to provide an alert prompt (Col. 4 line 17-23, “The risk of fall detection system 1 can be used to warn the user that is getting close to a posture which dramatically increases the risk of fall in enough time to allow the user to make a corrective action that immediately reduces this risk. It also records these incidents to warn of their increasing frequency to warn the physician and caregiver of the increasing Risk of Falls of the patient.”. The processing module 3 alerts the caregiver’s device about an increase of risk of fall.).
Regarding claim 20, Andrews teaches the system of claim 9, wherein each of said first and second sensor bands comprises a mounting body configured to mount the respective sensor band to a respective limb of the living being (Col. 2 line 58-62, “Bands or belts can be used to constrain the sensors 21-25 to the relative user's body regions as shown in FIG. 1. Alternatively, the sensors 21-25 can be integrated into a garment such as a T-shirt, pants, or a full-body suit as shown in FIG. 2.”).
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 3-6, 17 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (Pat. No.: US 11,967,217 B2) in view of Gwin (Pat. No.: US 9,311,789 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Andrews teaches the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the sensors 23, 25 measure the position of the wearer but fails to expressly teach wherein said at least one sensor is selected from a group consisting of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a global positioning system sensor.
However, in the same field of wearable sensor, Gwin teaches a wearable electronic watch 110 worn on the forearm of the wearer includes an accelerometer to measure the position and movement of the wearer. See Fig. 2, Col. 4 line 28-34, “The accelerometer and/or the gyroscope can be uni-axial, bi-axial, or tri-axial, for example, measuring acceleration and/or rotational velocity along at least one axis. Accelerometer, gyroscope, and/or magnetometer data may be combined to provide a quaternion representation of the sensor in space corresponding to a position and movement of a body segment.” and Col. 10, line 18-26, “For example, a STRATA Stealth watch can have a tri-axial accelerometer, vibrotactor, BLE radio module, programmable display, and/or microprocessor that can be modified and/or configured to have the features and functions of a sensor 110 as discussed herein.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andrew’s wrist sensor 25 with an electronic watch that include an accelerometer to accurately measure the position and movement of the wearer’s orientation.
Regarding claim 4, Andrews teaches the wearable device of claim 1, wherein said data processor is configured to process sensor data received from said first and second sensor bands and to determine whether said sensor data indicates that ambulation of the living being is imminent (Col. 3 line 28-30, “The processing module 3 is configured to process the acquired postured data and compute a risk of fall indicator parameter.”).
Andrews fails to expressly teach wherein at least one of said first and second sensor bands comprises a data processor and a memory.
However, Andrew suggests the processing module 3 can be integrated with the sensor of the wearable monitoring group 2 (Col. 3 line 24-25, “The processing module 3 can be integrated in the wearable monitoring group 2 or can be external.”)
Also, in the same field of wearable sensor, Gwin teaches a wearable electronic watch 110 worn on the forearm of the wearer includes a processor and memory configured to determine the body movement and orientation of the wearer based on the measurements from its sensors. See Fig. 2-5, Col 14 line 57-62, “In some embodiments, the movement data and/or movement descriptors can be processed to quantify and qualify body movement as discussed herein by the sensor 110 itself (e.g., with a processor and memory) and in some embodiments, followed by transmission of the movement data and/or movement descriptors to an external electronic device.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andrew’s wrist sensor 25 with an electronic watch that includes an accelerometer, processor and memory to determine a risk of a fall to reduce the number of components and to reduce cost.
Regarding claim 5, Andrews in the combination teaches the wearable device of claim 1, wherein said data processor is configured to process said sensor data to analyze each sensor band's sensor data in relation to the other sensor band's sensor data (Col. 3 line 31-39, “The risk of fall indicator parameter is computed from the relative position of at least the lower part of user's torso, upper part of user's torso, and user's lower limb(s) detected by the first, second and third sensor, respectively. Preferably, the risk of fall indicator parameter is computed also considering the position of the user's head and/or user's upper limb detected by the fourth and/or fifth sensors, respectively. Advantageously, this allows to take in to account the head and/or upper limb cantilever effects.”).
Regarding claim 6, Andrews in the combination teaches the wearable device of claim 1, wherein said data processor is configured to process said sensor data to and to cause transmission of a control signal via the transceiver to deliver an intervention when the sensor data indicates that ambulation of the living being is imminent (Fig. 4, protective element 4 or Col. 4 line 17-23, “The risk of fall detection system 1 can be used to warn the user that is getting close to a posture which dramatically increases the risk of fall in enough time to allow the user to make a corrective action that immediately reduces this risk. It also records these incidents to warn of their increasing frequency to warn the physician and caregiver of the increasing Risk of Falls of the patient.”. The processing module 3 alerts the caregiver about an increase of risk of fall.).
Regarding claim 17, Andrews teaches the system of claim 9, but fails to teach wherein at least one of said first and second sensor bands further comprises a feedback device operable to provide at least one of a haptic, an audible and a visible alert signal to the living being, and wherein said data processor is configured to process said sensor data and to cause transmission of a control signal via the communications device to said at least one of said first and second sensor bands to drive the feedback to device to alert the living being to avoid ambulation when the sensor data indicates that ambulation of the living being is imminent.
However, Andrew suggests the vibrator and the acoustic device can be integrated with the sensor of the wearable monitoring group 2 (Col. 4 line 40-48, “
Preferably, the vibrators are integrated into the wearable monitoring group. The biofeedback elements—in addition to or in place of the vibrators—can comprise acoustic sources configured to provide the feedback signal to the user in the form of a directional sound. The acoustic source can be integrated in the wearable monitoring group or in an electronic device (e.g. phone/tablet/computer speaker) in signal communication with the processing module 3.”).
Also, in the same field of wearable sensor, Gwin teaches a wearable electronic watch 110 worn on the forearm of the wearer includes vibrator to provide tactile feedback. See Col. 9, line 52-58, “Fig. 5 illustrates another example embodiment of a sensor 110 that, for example, has a form factor of a watch. The sensor 110 can have a strap 122 for affixing the sensor 110 to a person as discussed herein. The sensor 110 can have a visual display 136 for providing visual feedback as discussed herein. The watch sensor 110 can also provide tactile feedback as discussed herein.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andrew’s wrist sensor 25 with an electronic watch that includes an accelerometer and vibrator to provide tactile feedback to the wearer to help prevent injury.
Regarding claim 21, recites a limitation that is similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22, Andrews teaches a wearable device for predicting bodily falls (Abstract, Fig. 1, wearable monitor group 2), the device comprising:
a first sensor band dimensioned to be worn about a first limb of a living being; and
a second sensor band dimensioned to be worn about a second limb of the living being;
each of said first and second sensor bands comprising:
at least one sensor operatively configured to collect sensor data associated with band movement; and
a transceiver configured to transmit data from said at least one sensor via wireless data transmission (Rejection is similar to claim 1); and
a computing device (Fig. 1 – Fig. 3, processing module 3) comprising:
a processor (Fig. 3, processor 31);
a memory (Fig. 3, memory 30); and
instructions stored in said memory and executable by said processor to compare at least one of acceleration, orientation, and position data of said received from each of said first and second sensor bands to determine whether the sensor data is predictive of imminent ambulation of the living being (Col. 3 line 31-39, “The risk of fall indicator parameter is computed from the relative position of at least the lower part of user's torso, upper part of user's torso, and user's lower limb(s) detected by the first, second and third sensor, respectively. Preferably, the risk of fall indicator parameter is computed also considering the position of the user's head and/or user's upper limb detected by the fourth and/or fifth sensors, respectively. Advantageously, this allows to take in to account the head and/or upper limb cantilever effects.”. The processing module analyzes the data from the sensors to determine the risk of a fall.).
Andrew teaches the sensors 23, 25 measure the position of the wearer but fails to expressly teach said at least one sensor is selected from a group consisting of an accelerometer, a gyroscope, and a global positioning system sensor.
However, in the same field of wearable sensor, Gwin teaches a wearable electronic watch 110 worn on the forearm of the wearer includes an accelerometer to measure the position and movement of the wearer. See Fig. 2, Col. 4 line 28-34, “The accelerometer and/or the gyroscope can be uni-axial, bi-axial, or tri-axial, for example, measuring acceleration and/or rotational velocity along at least one axis. Accelerometer, gyroscope, and/or magnetometer data may be combined to provide a quaternion representation of the sensor in space corresponding to a position and movement of a body segment.” and Col. 10, line 18-26, “For example, a STRATA Stealth watch can have a tri-axial accelerometer, vibrotactor, BLE radio module, programmable display, and/or microprocessor that can be modified and/or configured to have the features and functions of a sensor 110 as discussed herein.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andrew’s wrist sensor 25 with an electronic watch that include an accelerometer to accurately measure the position and movement of the wearer’s orientation.
Regarding claim 23, Andrews teaches the wearable device of claim 22, wherein said each of said first and second sensor bands comprises a mounting body configured to mount the respective sensor band to a respective limb of the living being (Col. 2 line 58-62, “Bands or belts can be used to constrain the sensors 21-25 to the relative user's body regions as shown in FIG. 1. Alternatively, the sensors 21-25 can be integrated into a garment such as a T-shirt, pants, or a full-body suit as shown in FIG. 2.”).
Andrews fails to expressly teach wherein said computing device is supported on at least one of said first and second sensor bands.
However, Andrew suggests the processing module 3 can be integrated with the sensor band of the wearable monitoring group 2 (Col. 3 line 24-25, “The processing module 3 can be integrated in the wearable monitoring group 2 or can be external.”)
Also, in the same field of wearable sensor, Gwin teaches a wearable electronic watch 110 worn on the forearm of the wearer includes a processor and memory configured to determine the body movement and orientation of the wearer based on the measurements from its sensors. See Fig. 2-5, Col 14 line 57-62, “In some embodiments, the movement data and/or movement descriptors can be processed to quantify and qualify body movement as discussed herein by the sensor 110 itself (e.g., with a processor and memory) and in some embodiments, followed by transmission of the movement data and/or movement descriptors to an external electronic device.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andrew’s wrist sensor 25 with an electronic watch that includes an accelerometer, processor and memory to determine a risk of a fall to reduce the number of components and to reduce cost.
Regarding claim 24, Andrews in the combination teaches the wearable device of claim 22, wherein said computing device is an external computing device separate from said first and second sensor bands (Fig. 1, Col. 3 line 24-27, “The processing module 3 can be integrated in the wearable monitoring group 2 or can be external. In the latter case, the processing module 3 can be any kind of electronic device such as a smartphone, a tablet, a computer, and similar.”).
Regarding claim 25, Andrews in the combination teaches the wearable device of claim 22, wherein said data processor is configured to process said sensor data to analyze each sensor band's sensor data in relation to the other sensor band's sensor data (Col. 3 line 31-39, “The risk of fall indicator parameter is computed from the relative position of at least the lower part of user's torso, upper part of user's torso, and user's lower limb(s) detected by the first, second and third sensor, respectively. Preferably, the risk of fall indicator parameter is computed also considering the position of the user's head and/or user's upper limb detected by the fourth and/or fifth sensors, respectively. Advantageously, this allows to take in to account the head and/or upper limb cantilever effects.”).
Regarding claim 26, Andrews in the combination teaches the wearable device of claim 22, wherein said data processor is configured to process said sensor data to and to cause transmission of a control signal via a transceiver to deliver an intervention when the sensor data indicates that ambulation of the living being is imminent (Fig. 4, protective element 4 or Col. 4 line 17-23, “The risk of fall detection system 1 can be used to warn the user that is getting close to a posture which dramatically increases the risk of fall in enough time to allow the user to make a corrective action that immediately reduces this risk. It also records these incidents to warn of their increasing frequency to warn the physician and caregiver of the increasing Risk of Falls of the patient.”. The processing module 3 alerts the caregiver about an increase of risk of fall.).
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (Pat. No.: US 11,967,217 B2) in view of Emmons (Pub. No.: US 2020/0294674 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Andrews teaches the system of claim 12, but fails to teach wherein said computing device comprises a display device operable to display at least one of an identification of a monitored sensor band, a monitored patient room, a monitored patient, and a battery level of the monitored sensor band.
However, in the same field of fall detection, Emmons teaches a display screen for a computing device of the caregiver showing the room of the patient and the identity of the patient. See Fig. 5 and para [0009], “FIG. 5 is a diagrammatic representation of a display screen for a computing device of the caregiver showing the estimated likelihood of a fall for the patient of FIG. 2.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andrew’s caregiver with a computing device that displays the room of the patient and the identity of the patient who is at risk of falling to enable the caregiver to respond in a timely manner.
Regarding claim 14, Andrews teaches the system of claim 11, but fails to teach wherein said device is a sign controllable to illuminate to display an alert prompt.
However, in the same field of fall detection, Emmons teaches a display screen that alerts the caregiver by highlighting the room of the patient and the identity of the patient who is at risk of falling. See Fig. 5 and para [0053], “In addition, the fall score for the patient 540 exceeds the threshold for that patient, so the interface 500 provides an alert by highlighting the patient 540 on the interface 500. The alerting can include highlighting, flashing, audio, and/or other indications to alert the caregiver.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andrew’s system with a display that alerts the caregiver by highlighting the room of the patient and the identity of the patient who is at risk of falling to enable the caregiver to respond in a timely manner.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (Pat. No.: US 11,967,217 B2) in view of Lyon (Pub. No.: US 2014/0085082 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Andrews teaches the system of claim 11, but fails to teach wherein said device is a status band wearable by a caregiver and controllable by the control signal to provide an alert prompt.
However, in the same field of patient monitoring, Lyon teaches the caregiver has a wearable watch that displays alert information of the patient. See Fig. 1 and para [0026], “The remote patient monitor 110 and particularly a wearable portion may incorporate a display, such that a haptic signal would alert the caregiver and the display would provide detailed information about the alert.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andrew’s system with a caregiver watch that displays a patient who is at risk of falling to enable the caregiver to respond in a timely manner.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (Pat. No.: US 11,967,217 B2) in view of Wilmink (Pub. No.: US 2015/0112162 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Andrews teaches the system of claim 11, but fails to teach system of claim 9, wherein said data processor is configured to process said sensor data and to cause transmission of a control signal via the communications device to a feedback device mounted in or near a room occupied by the living being, to drive the feedback device to alert the living being to avoid ambulation when the sensor data indicates that ambulation of the living being is imminent.
However, in the same field of fall prediction, Wilmink teaches a fall prediction controller configured to transmit an instruction to turn on the lights in the room or to generate audible alarm that provide fall aid instruction to the patient. See para [0027], “The fall prediction controller (199) may also be configured to provide to another device an instruction to perform a fall aid operation based on the fall prediction assessment. For example, the fall prediction controller (199) may send an instruction to access device (179) to perform a fall aid operation. A fall aid operation may be any type of action that assists in fall prevention, fall detection, or response to a fall of the patient. Non-limiting examples of fall aid operations include unlocking doors to a car, room, house, or building; turning on lights in a room; sounding one or more audible alarms or playing recorded instructions to the patient via a speaker;”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andrew’s processing module to transmit a control signal to turn on the lights in the patient’s room or to generate audible alarm that provide fall aid instruction to prevent injury.
Regarding claim 18, Wilmink in the combination teaches the system of claim 16, wherein said feedback device comprises at least one of a speaker, a vibratory motor, and a lamp (See para [0027], “The fall prediction controller (199) may also be configured to provide to another device an instruction to perform a fall aid operation based on the fall prediction assessment. For example, the fall prediction controller (199) may send an instruction to access device (179) to perform a fall aid operation. A fall aid operation may be any type of action that assists in fall prevention, fall detection, or response to a fall of the patient. Non-limiting examples of fall aid operations include unlocking doors to a car, room, house, or building; turning on lights in a room; sounding one or more audible alarms or playing recorded instructions to the patient via a speaker;”. Light and speaker.).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrews (Pat. No.: US 11,967,217 B2) in view of Wilmink (Pub. No.: US 2015/0112162 A1) as applied to claim 16 and further in view of Gwin (Pat. No.: US 9,311,789 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Andrews in view of Wilmink teaches the system of claim 16, but fails to teach wherein at least one of said first and second sensor bands further comprises a feedback device operable to provide at least one of a haptic, an audible and a visible alert signal to the living being.
However, Andrew suggests the vibrator and the acoustic device can be integrated with the sensor of the wearable monitoring group 2 (Col. 4 line 40-48, “
Preferably, the vibrators are integrated into the wearable monitoring group. The biofeedback elements—in addition to or in place of the vibrators—can comprise acoustic sources configured to provide the feedback signal to the user in the form of a directional sound. The acoustic source can be integrated in the wearable monitoring group or in an electronic device (e.g. phone/tablet/computer speaker) in signal communication with the processing module 3.”).
Also, in the same field of wearable sensor, Gwin teaches a wearable electronic watch 110 worn on the forearm of the wearer includes vibrator to provide tactile feedback. See Col. 9, line 52-58, “Fig. 5 illustrates another example embodiment of a sensor 110 that, for example, has a form factor of a watch. The sensor 110 can have a strap 122 for affixing the sensor 110 to a person as discussed herein. The sensor 110 can have a visual display 136 for providing visual feedback as discussed herein. The watch sensor 110 can also provide tactile feedback as discussed herein.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Andrew’s wrist sensor 25 with an electronic watch that includes an accelerometer and vibrator to provide tactile feedback to the wearer to help prevent injury.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, EST.
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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685