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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 17 are objected to because of the following reason: it is suggested to amend “a preset activation threshold” to “the preset activation threshold”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20, the disclosure fails to provide adequate support for limitation “the mobile terminal is configured to generate the at least one alert message based on the activated safety protocol, and in response to a comparison between a quantity based on the at least one datum originating from the obtained acoustic signal, and a preset activation threshold”.
As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is broadly interpreted as the alert message is generated in response to “a comparison between a quantity based on the at least one datum originating from the obtained acoustic signal, and a preset activation threshold”; however, nowhere in the disclosure describes this particular feature.
As stated in p. 3 and p. 10 of the specification of the instant application, acoustic signal captured by a microphone is used to provide identifier to activate the safety protocol. No example or description has been given in the disclosure as related to how acoustic signal is being compared with a preset activation threshold to generate an alert in any circumstances.
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 1-4, 7-13, 15 and 17-19 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 claims 1 and 15, the recited limitation “…at least one alert message based on at least one datum originating from the scanned QR code” renders the claims indefinite. As best understood by the examiner, the alert message is generated when sensor data is compared with a preset activation threshold. It is unclear why the “scanned QR code” would comprise sensor data that would be used in comparison with a preset activation threshold for generating an alert message. For examination purpose, the datum is broadly interpreted as sensor data.
Regarding claim 3, the claim fails to clearly define relationship between “a datum representative of acceleration originating from an accelerometer” and “a datum originating from input means of the mobile terminal” as recited in the claim, and “a quantity based on the at least one datum originating from the scanned QR code” as recited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the claim fails to clearly define relationship between “at least one datum originating from the sensors at least one sensor of the system” as recited in the claim, and “a quantity based on the at least one datum originating from the scanned QR code” as recited in claim 1.
In addition, claims 2, 4, 7-13 and 18-19 are indefinite because they either directly or indirectly dependent from claims 1, 3, 15 and/or 17.
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) 1-4, 7-13, 15 and 17-19 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 claims 1, 15 and 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 a safety protocol (e.g. [0116, 0209]: alert function) for a lone worker (e.g. [0002]) comprising:
activating, by the mobile terminal (Figs. 1A-1B), the safety protocol (e.g. [0097-0099, 0270-0271]: activating the monitoring device based upon valid identifier received; thus, activating the alert function of the monitoring device), wherein each safety protocol comprises one or more alert functions (e.g. [0097-0099, 0270-0271]: capable of sending alert messages);
generating, by the mobile terminal, at least one alert message (e.g. [0016-0022]) based on at least one datum (e.g. Fig. 1B: 101) originating from the scanned QR code (broadly interpreted as sensor data based on interpretation under 35. U.S.C. 112 rejection);
wherein the mobile terminal is configured to generate the at least one alert message based on the activated safety protocol (e.g. [0097-0099, 0270-0271]: activating the monitoring device based upon valid identifier received; thus, activating the alert function of the monitoring device), and in response to a comparison between a quantity based on the at least one datum originating from the scanned QR code, and a preset activation threshold (e.g. [0198-0202]).
Stinson fails to disclose, but Matthews teaches:
obtaining, by at least one imaging sensor integrated or communicatively connected to a mobile terminal, a scan of a QR code comprising data identifying a safety protocol (e.g. [0093, 0162]: safety protocol of the safety pendant is activated and identified as associated with the user when QR code of the pendant is scanned by the user, and the safety protocol of the pendant includes sensors for reporting user status);
activating, by the mobile terminal, the safety protocol based on the scanned QR code, wherein each safety protocol comprises one or more alert functions (e.g. [0093, 0162]: safety protocol of the safety pendant is activated and identified as associated with the user when QR code of the pendant is scanned by the user, and the safety protocol of the pendant includes sensors for reporting user status).
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.
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 comprises:
a function for detecting absence of movement in which at least one alert message is generated when a variation of the at least one 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; or
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 safety 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 safety 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 is configured to download the safety protocol 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 activating step is carried out when at least one condition belonging to the following group is fulfilled:
said identifier of the safety protocol is obtained when the mobile terminal is in a preset geographic zone;
said identifier of the safety 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 safety 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 transmitting, by the mobile terminal, to a remote alert server to which the mobile terminal is connected via the radiocommunications network, of the 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 safety 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 indicative of 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).
Regarding claim 18, Stinson discloses said activating step is carried out when said identifier of the safety protocol is obtained while the mobile terminal is in a preset geographic zone (e.g. [0064]: configuration settings, i.e. activation of safety protocol/alert message of the monitoring device, is update in accordance with geographic zone of the user).
Regarding claim 19, Stinson discloses said at least one alert function comprises a function for detecting fall of the mobile terminal in which the 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 upper threshold (e.g. [0219, 0220, 0324]: fall detection by accelerometer).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-13, 15 and 17-19 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) and Scheper et al. (US 2018/0025615 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Stinson discloses a process (e.g. Fig. 1C) for activating a safety protocol (e.g. [0116, 0209]: alert function) for a lone worker (e.g. [0002]) comprising:
Obtaining data representative of or identifying a safety protocol (e.g. [0097-0099, 0270-0271]: activating the monitoring device based upon valid identifier received);
activating, by the mobile terminal (Figs. 1A-1B), the safety protocol (e.g. [0097-0099, 0270-0271]: activating the monitoring device based upon valid identifier received; thus, activating the alert function of the monitoring device), wherein each safety protocol comprises one or more alert functions (e.g. [0097-0099, 0270-0271]: capable of sending alert messages).
Stinson fails to disclose, but Jin teaches:
obtaining, by at least one microphone integrated or communicatively connected to a mobile terminal, an acoustic signal comprising data representative of or identifying a safety protocol (e.g. [0016]: voice recognition for receiving identifier implies the use of microphone or equivalent voice capture device to receive voice or acoustic signal).
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 other means of user input to identify a user, since it is merely simple substitutions of one known technique with another according to KSR.
Therefore, Stinson and Jain in combination discloses activating, by the mobile terminal, the safety protocol based on the obtained acoustic signal, wherein each safety protocol comprises one or more alert functions.
Stinson fails to disclose, but Scheper teaches generating, by the mobile terminal, at least one alert message based on at least one datum originating from the obtained acoustic signal; wherein the mobile terminal is configured to generate the at least one alert message based on the activated safety protocol, and in response to a comparison between a quantity based on the at least one datum originating from the obtained acoustic signal, and a preset activation threshold (e.g. [0003, 0020, 0030, 0031] a mobile device includes a microphone to measure sound, and provide alert if the measured sound exceeds a predetermined level).
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 Scheper to issue alert based on measured sound exceeding a threshold in case of accident occurs as indication of sound in a remote area for a lone worker; thus, safety of the lone worker is enhanced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5, the examiner disagrees.
The claims define “safety protocol comprises one or more alert functions”. Stinson discloses an invention directed to monitoring and sending alerts regarding user status once user is identified and associated with a monitoring device (see rejection of claim 1). Thus, identifying and associating user with the monitoring device activates a safety protocol (i.e. monitoring function and alert messages issued function). Jain is further cited to teach user identification can be based on scanning a QR code instead of manually entering a passcode. Therefore, the combination of Stinson and Jain disclose the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4, 7-13, 15 and 17-20 are unpatentable at least in view of foregoing reasons and rejections set forth in current Office action.
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 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
Prosecution Insights