Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 03/27/2026. Claims 1-14 have been presented for examination. Claims 1-14 have been amended. Claims 1-14 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: deleted limitations in amended claims should have a line through the deleted limitations or a double parenthesis around the deleted limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: recite “a notifications” instead of --a notification--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess (Pub. No.: 2015/0106041 A1) in view of Song (Pub. No.: 2022/0151549 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Bess discloses the claimed system for controlling the notifications device via surface vibrations caused by the subject (fig. 1: 10a), comprising:
a sensor (fig. 1: 20) for detecting vibrations from a surface, the sensor being placed in contact with the surface (¶0015);
a processing unit (fig. 1: 30) that processes the vibration data from the sensor to generate a first vibration pattern characterized by at least frequency, amplitude, count, and interval parameters (¶0011), enhance it as a first vibration pattern and compares the first vibration pattern it to pre-defined vibration patterns (¶0018), and then sends commands for controlling the notifications device (¶0018) based on the compatibility of the first vibration pattern and the pre-defined vibration patterns (¶0018-¶0019 discloses determining similarity between the events from the vibration data and a set of patterns); and
a receiving module that receives commands from the processing unit (¶0017 and ¶0021).
Bess does not explicitly disclose a geophone is used. Bess discloses it is known to use an accelerometer to detect vibration.
However, Song discloses it is known for a geophone to detect vibration (¶0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the system of Bess to utilize a geophone, as taught by Bess.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Bess as described above in order to use a known alternative device for detecting vibration patterns.
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Bess and Song further disclose the system for controlling the notifications device via surface vibrations caused by the subject according to claim 1, wherein the geophone sensor is configured to detect vibrations in a frequency range of 1-200 Hz (Song ¶0043).
3) In regard to claim 3 (dependent on claim 1), Bess and Song further disclose the system for controlling a notifications device via surface vibrations caused by the subject according to claim 1, wherein the vibration surface is from the floor and the top of table (Bess ¶0014).
4) In regard to claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Bess and Song further disclose the system for controlling the notifications device via surface vibrations caused by a subject according to claim 1, wherein the surface vibration is caused by the force applied by a part of body of the subject to the surface (Bess ¶0015).
5) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Bess and Song further disclose the system for controlling the notifications device via surface vibrations caused by the subject according to claim 1, wherein the control of the notifications device is the activation or deactivation notifications device (Bess ¶0021-¶0022).
6) In regard to claim 7, claim 7 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
7) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 7), claim 9 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 2 and the references applied.
8) In regard to claim 10 (dependent on claim 7), claim 10 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 3 and the references applied.
9) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 7), claim 11 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 4 and the references applied.
10) In regard to claim 13 (dependent on claim 7), claim 13 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 6 and the references applied.
11) In regard to claim 14 (dependent on claim 7), Bess and Song further disclose the method for controlling a notifications device according to claim 7, wherein the control of the notifications device is any combination of sound signal, light signal, text signal, image signal, and vibration signal (Bess ¶0021).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bess (Pub. No.: 2015/0106041 A1) in view of Song (Pub. No.: 2022/0151549 A1) and further in view of Cheng (Pub. No.: 2016/0182503 A1)
1) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 7), Bess and Song disclose the method for controlling notifications device according to claim 7.
Bess and Song do not explicitly disclose the second vibration pattern within specified period to deactivate notifications device.
However, Cheng the second vibration pattern within specified period to deactivate notifications device (0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to allow the method of Bess to have a second vibration pattern to indicate deactivation of the notification device, as taught by Cheng.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Bess as described above in order to indicate the detected pattern is a false alarm, as taught by Cheng (¶0017).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended claims, based solely on the amendments to the claims, have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references including new prior art being used in the current new grounds of rejection for the newly added limitations to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 CURTIS J KING whose telephone number is (571)270-5160. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 6:00 - 2:00 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.
/CURTIS J KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights