Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment and remarks received on 03/18/2026. Claims 1-2, 5-13, and 16-23 have been presented for examination. Claims 1, 9-10, and 12-13 have been amended, claims 3-4 and 14-15 have been canceled, and new claims 16-23 have been added. Claims 1-2, 5-13, and 16-23 have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “identifying a type of that event” in lines 5-6. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5-13, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (Pub. No.: 2003/0058111 A1).
1) In regard to claim 1, Lee discloses the claimed computer implemented method of detecting anomalous behaviour within an environment that is monitored by a plurality of sensors providing a plurality of data feeds, each data feed providing a respective data series representing a respective physical property of the environment over time (fig. 1), the method comprising:
detecting an occurrence of an event within the environment and identifying a type of that event (¶0066);
identifying a plurality of normally correlated data feeds from the plurality of data feeds for the type of the event (¶0066);
determining a respective degree of correlation between the respective data series provided by each of the normally correlated data feeds for the occurrence of the event (¶0066); and
determining a classification of the behaviour within the environment based on the determined degree(s) of correlation, the classification indicating whether the behaviour is normal or anomalous for the environment (¶0014 and ¶0055-¶0059); and
performing a predetermined action in response to determining that the behaviour is classified as being anomalous for the environment, wherein the predetermined action comprises increasing a level of monitoring of the environment by the plurality of sensors (¶0036 and ¶0055-¶0059).
2) In regard to claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Lee further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the classification of the behaviour within the environment is further based on a normal degree of correlation between the data series from the normally correlated data feeds for the type of the event (¶0066).
3) In regard to claim 5 (dependent on claim 1), Lee further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the occurrence of the event is detected based on the respective data series provided by one or more of the data feeds and the plurality of normally correlated data feeds comprises at least one data feed that was not used to detect the occurrence of the event (¶0088).
4) In regard to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), Lee further disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising receiving contextual data for the environment (¶0086-¶0088).
5) In regard to claim 7 (dependent on claim 6), Lee further disclose the method of claim 6, wherein the detection of the occurrence of the event is based, at least in part, on the contextual data (¶0086-¶0088).
6) In regard to claim 8 (dependent on claim 1), Lee further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the environment is a domestic environment for occupation by one or more occupants (¶0086-¶0088).
7) In regard to claim 9 (dependent on claim 1), Lee further disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising receiving contextual data for the environment, wherein the detection of the occurrence of the event is based, at least in part, on the contextual data, and the contextual data comprises a calendar entry for at least one of the occupants (¶0086-¶0088).
8) In regard to claim 10, claim 10 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
9) In regard to claim 11 (dependent on claim 10), claim 11 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
10) In regard to claim 12, claim 12 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
11) In regard to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 1 and the references applied.
12) In regard to claim 16 (dependent on claim 12), claim 16 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 2 and the references applied.
13) In regard to claim 17 (dependent on claim 12), claim 17 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 5 and the references applied.
14) In regard to claim 18 (dependent on claim 12), claim 18 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 6 and the references applied.
15) In regard to claim 19 (dependent on claim 18), claim 19 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 7 and the references applied.
16) In regard to claim 20 (dependent on claim 12), claim 20 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 8 and the references applied.
17) In regard to claim 21 (dependent on claim 20), claim 21 is rejected and analyzed with respect to claim 9 and the references applied.
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 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (Pub. No.: 2003/0058111 A1) in view of Sharma (Pub. No.: 2021/0005071 A1).
1) In regard to claim 22, Lee discloses the claimed computer system of claim 18, wherein the detection of the occurrence of the event is based, at least in part, on the contextual data.
Lee does not explicitly disclose the contextual data includes an indication of weather conditions.
However, Sharma discloses it is known for an event to be detected based on contextual data which includes a weather condition (¶0036).
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 Lee to utilize weather as contextual data for determining an event, as taught by Sharma.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Lee as described above in order to increase the sensitivity of the system to detect when a user is more likely to fall, as taught by Sharma (¶0036).
2) In regard to claim 23, Lee discloses the claimed computer system of claim 6, wherein the detection of the occurrence of the event is based, at least in part, on the contextual data.
Lee does not explicitly disclose the contextual data includes an indication of weather conditions.
However, Sharma discloses it is known for an event to be detected based on contextual data which includes a weather condition (¶0036).
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 Lee to utilize weather as contextual data for determining an event, as taught by Sharma.
One skilled in the art would be motivated to modify Lee as described above in order to increase the sensitivity of the system to detect when a user is more likely to fall, as taught by Sharma (¶0036).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, on pages 9-10 of applicant’s response, applicant argues:
“Lee fails to disclose "performing a predetermined action in response to determining that the behaviour is classified as being anomalous for the environment, wherein the predetermined action comprises increasing a level of monitoring of the environment by the plurality of sensors", as recited by independent claim 1 and its dependents (including new dependent claim 23).
This claim feature is supported by original claims 3 and 4 (now canceled) and page 16, lines 24-25 of the original specification of the present application which teaches the following advantage resulting from this claim feature: "a level of monitoring of the environment may be increased to allow a better detection, identification and/or investigation of any issues occurring within the environment." (Emphasis added).
However, para. [0036] and all other portions of Lee fail to disclose "performing a predetermined action in response to determining that the behaviour is classified as being anomalous for the environment, wherein the predetermined action comprises increasing a level of monitoring of the environment by the plurality of sensors" as recited by claim 1 and fail to appreciate the technical advantage of better detection, identification and/or investigation of any issues occurring within the environment provided by this missing claim feature.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument, because applicant states in their response the increase level of monitoring could be investigation of any issues occurring within the environment. Lee discloses in ¶0036 detecting an occurrence of an abnormal behavior initiates an alert to others which could take the form of a telephone call or transmission of the camera feed to a medical professional who can make an independent analysis. Thus, applicant arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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