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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the limitation “activating the protocol from the identifier obtained”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “activating the protocol based on the identifier obtained”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the limitations “a variation of a datum” in line 4, “the terminal” in line 7, and “at least one alert message” in lines 3, 7 and 11. It is suggested to amend the limitations to “a variation of said at least one datum”, “the mobile terminal”, and “said at least one alert message”, respectively. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the limitation “said activation”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “said activating”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the limitation “at least one alert message”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “said at least one alert message”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the limitation “an electronic device” and the phrase “it comprises”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “an electronic activation device” and the phrase to “said electronic activation device comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the limitation “the sensors”. It is suggested to amend the limitation to “said at least one sensor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, recited limitation in the claim further limit “at least one alert function” as recited in claim 1; however, the recited limitation fails to clearly define the relationship between the datum and threshold as recited in claim 1 and in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, the recited limitation “…and said preset time period” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited limitation is part of transmission executed by said mobile terminal. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the recited limitation “” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear: i) why said at least one alert message generated by the mobile terminal is transmitted to an expected location of the mobile terminal, and ii) why “said at least one alert message is transmitted…within the remote alert server” since said at least one alert message is generated by the mobile terminal. For examination purpose, the recited limitation is broadly interpreted as “said at least one alert message is transmitted with an associated identifier corresponds to an expected location of the mobile terminal to the remote alert server”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is drawn to a computer program product comprising program code instructions, where the computer program product can be a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, which are non-statutory as noted, infra.
A claim directed to a signal, a carrier wave, or a data structure, per se, is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stinson et al. (US 2019/0228631 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14-17, Stinson disclose an electronic activation device (e.g. Figs. 1A-1B) , a computer program product (e.g. [0130]), a mobile terminal (e.g. Figs. 1A-1B), a system comprising the mobile terminal (e.g. Figs. 1A-1C), and a process (e.g. Fig. 1C):
for activating, on a mobile terminal (e.g. Figs. 1A-1B), a safety protocol for a lone worker (e.g. [0002]) comprising at least one alert function comprising program code instructions (e.g. [0130]) configuring the mobile terminal so that at least one alert message (e.g. [0016-0022]) is generated on the basis of comparison between on the one hand a quantity based on at least one datum originating from a sensor (e.g. Fig. 1B: 101), integrated or communicatively connected to the mobile terminal, or originating from input means of the mobile terminal, and on the other hand a preset activation threshold (e.g. [0198-0202]), characterised in that the mobile terminal executes:
- obtaining an identifier of the protocol (e.g. [0096, 0270-0271]: obtaining identifier of sensor connected to the device or identifier of the user operating the device);
- activating the protocol from the identifier obtained (e.g. [0097-0099, 0270-0271]: activating the monitoring device based upon valid identifier received).
Regarding claim 2, Stinson discloses said quantity is representative of said at least one datum or a variation, over a preset time period, of said at least one datum (e.g. [0198-0202]).
Regarding claim 3, Stinson discloses said at least one alert function belongs to the group comprising:
- a function for detecting absence of movement in which at least one alert message is generated when a variation of a datum representative of acceleration originating from an accelerometer over a preset time period, integrated or communicatively connected to the mobile terminal, is under a preset low threshold (e.g. [0162, 0164, 0200]: motion);
- a function for detecting fall of the terminal in which at least one alert message is generated when a variation, over a preset time period, of a datum representative of acceleration originating from an accelerometer, integrated or communicatively connected to the mobile terminal, is above a preset high threshold (e.g. [0162, 0164, 0200]: orientation);
- a function for detection of loss of verticality in which at least one alert message is generated when an angle estimated between, on the one hand, a preset axis of orientation of the sensor and, on the other hand, a horizontal plane is below a preset angular threshold, the angle emanating from at least one accelerometer integrated or communicatively connected to the mobile terminal; and
- a time alert function in which at least one alert message is generated when a variation of a datum originating from input means of the mobile terminal is under a preset activation threshold over a preset time period (e.g. [0034, 0162, 0164, 0200]: time of threat: time since user last initiated a report signal).
Regarding claim 4, Stinson discloses said protocol comprises at least said time alert function (e.g. [0034, 0162, 0164, 0200]: time of threat: time since user last initiated a report signal), and wherein said mobile terminal executes transmission to a remote server to which the mobile terminal is connected, via a radiocommunications network, of a position of the mobile terminal at the time of activation of the protocol; and said preset time period (e.g. [0238]: send alert along with position data and time stamp to remote device).
Regarding claim 7, Stinson discloses the mobile terminal performs a download of the protocol identified by the identifier obtained prior to activation and from a remote server to which the mobile terminal is connected, via a radiocommunications network (e.g. [0285]: receive protocol update from remote device to configure settings of the monitoring device; thus, implies update is performed prior to activation, and [0270]: the monitoring device is activated by first identifying the user).
Regarding claim 8, Stinson discloses said activation is carried out when at least one condition belonging to the following group is fulfilled:
- said identifier of the protocol is obtained when the mobile terminal is in a preset geographic zone;
- said identifier of the protocol is obtained at an instant belonging to a preset time window;
- a user profile configured on the mobile terminal corresponds to an expected user profile linked to the protocol (e.g. [0270-0271]).
Regarding claim 9, Stinson discloses the mobile terminal executes playback, on playback means of screen or loudspeaker type of the mobile terminal, of at least one preventive message linked to said protocol (e.g. [0296]: series of audio or visual commands provided to the user).
Regarding claim 10, Stinson discloses said at least one preventive message is received from a remote server in response to a request sent by the mobile terminal to the remote server (e.g. [0293-0297]: audio or visual commands are provided to each device user based upon alert received from one of the devices).
Regarding claim 11, Stinson discloses the mobile terminal executes transmission, to a remote alert server to which the mobile terminal is connected via the radiocommunications network, of at least one alert message generated by the safety protocol (e.g. [0021-0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Stinson discloses said at least one alert message is transmitted with geolocation information representative:
- of the position of the mobile terminal at the time of generation of said at least one alert message (e.g. [0210, 0238]); or
- of the last known position of the mobile terminal after activation of the protocol and prior to generation of said at least one alert message.
Regarding claim 13, Stinson discloses said at least one alert message is transmitted with an associated identifier, within the remote alert server, to an expected location of the mobile terminal (e.g. [0210, 0238]: the alert message is transmitted to remote server along with identifier associated with location of the device).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stinson et al. (US 2019/0228631 A1) in view of Matthews et al. (US 2015/0282061 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Stinson fails to disclose, but Matthews teaches said obtaining comprises a scan, involving at least one imaging sensor of said mobile terminal, of a QR code representative of said identifier (e.g. [0093, 0162]).
It is well-known in the art as taught by Matthews to utilize QR code to register and/or identify an identity of a user.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stinson with the teachings of Matthews to utilize QR code instead of user input to identify a user, since it is merely simple substitutions of one known technique with another according to KSR.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stinson et al. (US 2019/0228631 A1) in view of Jain (US 2007/0181681 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Stinson fails to disclose, but Jain teaches said obtaining comprises capturing, involving at least one microphone of said mobile terminal, of an acoustic signal representative of said identifier (e.g. [0016]: voice recognition implies the use of microphone).
It is well-known in the art as taught by Jain to utilize voice recognition to identify an identity of a user.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Stinson with the teachings of Jain to utilize voice recognition instead of user input to identify a user, since it is merely simple substitutions of one known technique with another according to KSR.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688