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 .
Claims 6-10, 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 and overcome the 35 USC 112 (b) rejections.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 and 13 recite the term “and/or” and it unclear to the examiner whether the applicant meant to claim “and” or “or.” For the purpose of Examination the term is being interpreted as “or.” Applicant is requested to amend the claims and recite either “and” or “or.”
Claim 14 is directed to “a computer program for detecting a fall of a person” it is examiner’s educated guess that claim 14 seems to be directed to “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising a computer program for detecting a fall of a person.” A non-transitory computer readable medium falls into statutory class of “composition of matter” under statute 35 USC 101. However, claim 14 is a dependent claim of claim 13 which is claiming, “a computer implemented method for detecting a fall of a person” which is a falls into statutory class of “process” under 35 USC 101. Therefore, it is unclear to the Examiner whether the invention of claim 14 is directed to a “composition of matter” or a “process” under 35 USC 101. Claim 15 is objected for the same reason.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a stationary sensor configured to provide a first sensor signal…”, in claim 1 interpreted to be “The stationary sensor 110 comprises a radar that is a monostatic FMCW radar. Alternatively, the stationary sensor 110 may comprise a Wi-Fi based bi-static radar.”
“a wearable sensor configured to provide a second sensor signal …”, in claim 1 interpreted to be “ the wearable sensor 104 comprises an accelerometer that is configured for detecting an acceleration… the wearable sensor may comprise a velocity sensor configured for measuring a velocity of the person 102, a position sensor configured for this measuring a change of position of the person 102 or a barometric pressure sensor configured for detecting a change in height of the person 102… the wearable sensor is comprised in a smart watch,”
“a line-of-sight detection unit configured to determine … and to provide a line-of-sight signal…”, in claim 1 interpreted to be “line-of-sight 114 may be detected using a light source that is external to or integrated into the stationary sensor 110 and configured for providing a light signal that can be detected by a light sensor comprised by the wearable sensor 104 if the wearable sensor 104 is in line-of-sight 114 of the stationary sensor 110.” “line-of-sight detection unit may be implemented by the same processor or processing unit as the fall detection unit or may be implemented by an external processor or processing unit.”
“a fall detection unit configured to detect a fall of the person …”, in claim 1 interpreted to be “fall detection unit may be or may comprise a processor or processing unit configured for processing the first sensor signal, the second sensor signal and the line-of- sight signal.”
“an output unit configured to provide an output signal”, See 35 USC 112 (b) rejections.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 are rejected because:
Claim limitation “an output unit configured to provide an output signal indicative of whether a fall of the person has been detected” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specification fails to define the specific structure related to the claimed “output unit.” Specification explicitly states, “the system’s output unit 120 that is configured to provide an output signal 122 indicative of whether a fall of the person 102 has been detected. Based on whether the output signal 122 indicates a fall of the person 102, further actions may be triggered, for example, an alarm may be activated for informing about the fall of the person 102. The output signal 122 may also represent a probability that a genuine fall having occurred. Based on the provided probability, further actions may be triggered. For example, if the probability for a genuine fall having occurred is above a predefined probability threshold value, an alarm may be activated accordingly. The output signal 122 may also be received by a device having a display for visualizing a message indicating the probability for a genuine fall having occurred.” The claimed output unit is not “a device having a display for visualizing a message” rather an undisclosed structure “output unit configured to provide an output signal 122.” This statute requires specific structure for the claimed element. Therefore, the claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-12 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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. Claim 14 is directed toward a “computer program”, e.g. a transitory signal, which is a non-statutory invention, because a transitory signal is not a machine, process, article of manufacturer, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. To be statutory the claim must claim a machine, process, article of manufacturer, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. An ordinary skilled in the art interprets a non-tangible modulated signal as a computer readable medium. The specification and the claims must define the patentable subject matter away from being a transitory signal without adding any new matter. Please make appropriate corrections.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-5, 11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kechichian (US 2022/0020257 A1) and further in view of Song, WenZhan et al. (US 2022/0101709 A1).
Consider claim 1, Kechichian teaches, a system for detecting a fall of a person, Kechichian teaches, “body-worn fall detection system such as a wrist-based device or pendant worn around a user's neck usually employs inertial sensors such as accelerometers and gyroscopes to track the device user's movements, and additionally incorporates a pressure sensor to detect height changes.” See ¶ 0003, the system comprising:
a stationary sensor (104 a) configured to provide a first sensor signal indicative of a fall of the person, Kechichian teaches, “at least one contextual sensor 104, such as the camera 104a, the microphone, 104b.” See ¶ 0066, Kechichian teaches, “the user may wear the wrist worn device 300 and it will monitor based on either based on the movement sensors only (in the compliance mode) or based on the movement sensor(s) 102 and the contextual sensor(s) 104 (in the non-compliance mode, when not worn in the pre-determined fashion). However, if the user goes to the shower or wants to give his wrist break from the wearing the wrist worn device 300, then the contextual sensor(s) 104 only can monitor the user. For instance, the microphone 104b can remain switched ON to detect any sound associated with an impact with floor. Also, the camera 104a can remain ON to detect visuals of the user and can detect if the user has fallen out the viewing range/viewing scene.” See ¶ 0069,
a wearable sensor (1000/102) configured to provide a second sensor signal indicative of a fall of the person, Kechichian teaches, “the user may wear the wrist worn device 300 and it will monitor based on either based on the movement sensors only (in the compliance mode) or based on the movement sensor(s) 102 and the contextual sensor(s) 104 (in the non-compliance mode, when not worn in the pre-determined fashion). However, if the user goes to the shower or wants to give his wrist break from the wearing the wrist worn device 300, then the contextual sensor(s) 104 only can monitor the user. For instance, the microphone 104b can remain switched ON to detect any sound associated with an impact with floor. Also, the camera 104a can remain ON to detect visuals of the user and can detect if the user has fallen out the viewing range/viewing scene.” See ¶ 0069
a line-of-sight detection unit (106) configured to determine whether the wearable sensor (1000/102) is in line-of-sight of the stationary sensor (104a) and to provide a line-of-sight signal indicative of whether the wearable sensor is in line-of-sight of the stationary sensor, Kechichian teaches, “[t]he compliance unit 106, at step 202, during the operation of the system 100, checks if the wearable device 1000 is worn properly, i.e. is the wearable device compliant.” See ¶ 0049; Kechichian teaches, “If at step 202, it is determined that the user has worn the wearable device 1000 properly, then at step 204, the controller 108 operates the system 100 in a compliance mode and accordingly monitors the user based on movement sensors,” See ¶ 0050, Kechichian teaches “if the outcome of the check of the compliance unit 106 of whether the wearable device 1000 is worn but not in pre-determined fashion is “NO”, then at step 216, the compliance unit 106 then confirms that the wearable device 1000 is not worn by the user.” See ¶ 0057
a fall detection unit (106/108) configured to detect a fall of the person based on
a) the line-of-sight signal, Kechichian teaches, “the accelerometer data can be augmented with data from the camera 104a. The controller 108, in yet another exemplary embodiment, uses data from the accelerometer, camera 104a and microphone 104b.” See ¶ 0054, and
b) the first sensor signal (from 104 a) and/or the second sensor signal (), Kechichian teaches, “the compliance unit 106 will receive the signal from the sensor 110 but below a quality threshold, which is indicative of the wearing compliance status that the user is wearing the wearable device 1000 but not properly.” See ¶ 0047 and
an output unit configured to provide an output signal indicative of whether a fall of the person has been detected, “system 100 further includes the emergency unit 116 for letting the user trigger an alarm for the remote call center or caregiver.” See ¶ 0063.
Kechichian does not explicitly call the line-of-sight signal, Kechichian “the camera 104a can remain ON to detect visuals of the user and can detect if the user has fallen out the viewing range/viewing scene.” See ¶ 0069, nonetheless, in an analogous, art, Song teaches, “a monitoring system for monitoring activity in a predefined area. The monitoring system includes a network of sensor units arranged on a floor of the predefined area. The individual sensor units of the network of sensor units can includes a sensor, a computing device in data communication with the sensor, and at least one application executable in the computing device.” See ¶ 0029. Song teaches, “specific sensing conditions and location rules are usually required according to the methodology assumptions, including line-of-sight, high sensor density, carrying wearable devices,” See ¶ 0050.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the invention of Kechichian and use stationary sensors 106 shown in Fig. 21 of Song to have the line-of-sight of the carrying wearable device, in an effort to effectively determine when the user has actually fallen and whether the user is wearing the wearable device properly.
Consider claim 2, the system of claim 1, wherein the fall detection unit is configured to detect a fall of the person if the line-of-sight signal indicates that the wearable sensor is in the line-of -sight of the stationary sensor and at least one of the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal indicates a fall of the person, Kechichian teaches, “if the outcome of the check of the compliance unit 106 of whether the wearable device 1000 is worn but not in pre-determined fashion is “NO”, then at step 216, the compliance unit 106 then confirms that the wearable device 1000 is not worn by the user. T” See ¶ 0057. In view of Song, it would obvious to receive a line-of-sight signal from 104a to determine the compliance.
Consider claim 3, the system of claim 1 , wherein the line-of-sight detection unit is configured to determine repeatedly at predefined time intervals whether the wearable sensor is in line-of-sight of the stationary sensor, “then the timing unit 114 further checks the time for which the wearable device 1000 is non-compliant, i.e. not worn/or not worn in the pre-determined fashion. The timing unit 114 compares the time of non-compliance with a pre-determined time threshold, such as 10 minutes. In the case, where the time of non-compliance exceeds the pre-determined threshold, then a call is initiated by the controller 108 at step 208. The call may be made to a caregiver, a service provider, a remote monitoring unit, a call center.” See ¶ 0060. In view of Song, it would obvious to receive a line-of-sight signal from 104a to determine the compliance.
Consider claim 4, the system of claim 1, wherein the line-of-sight detection unit is configured to determine whether the wearable sensor is in line-of-sight of the stationary sensor if at least one of the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal indicates a fall of the person. Kechichian teaches, “if the outcome of the check of the compliance unit 106 of whether the wearable device 1000 is worn but not in pre-determined fashion is “NO”, then at step 216, the compliance unit 106 then confirms that the wearable device 1000 is not worn by the user. T” See ¶ 0057. In view of Song, it would obvious to “”receive a line-of-sight signal from 104a to determine the compliance. Kechichian teaches If “the wearable device 1000 is not worn properly, the accelerometer data alone cannot be relied upon and hence the detection of fall is further augmented with microphone data, such as sound of the impact with the ground. This improves the fall detection. Alternatively, the accelerometer data can be augmented with data from the camera 104a. The controller 108, in yet another exemplary embodiment, uses data from the accelerometer, camera 104a and microphone 104b.” See ¶ 0054
Consider claim 5, the system of claim 1, wherein for determining whether the wearable sensor is in line-of-sight of the stationary sensor, the line-of-sight detection unit is configured to take into account at least one stationary object (user’s body) that is in the field of view of the stationary sensor, See Song Fig. 21. In view of Song, Kechichian’s camera can detect at least one stationary object (user’s body) lying of the field of view of the camera 104, i.e. Song’s sensor 106.
Consider claim 11, the system of claim 1, wherein the stationary sensor is or comprises a radar, Kechichian teaches, “Related indoor sensing studies typically use … Doppler shift frequency-difference-of-arrival (FDOA)” See ¶ 0050.
Consider claim 13, a computer implemented method for detecting a fall of a person, the method comprising:
receiving a first sensor signal indicative of a fall of the person from a stationary sensor, and/or
receiving a second sensor signal indicative of a fall of the person from a wearable sensor, and
determining whether the wearable sensor is in line-of-sight of the stationary sensor,
providing a line-of-sight signal indicative of whether the wearable sensor is in line-of-sight of the stationary sensor,
detecting a fall of the person based on a) the line-of-sight signal and b) the first sensor signal and/or the second sensor signal, and
providing an output signal indicative of whether a fall of the person has been detected, See rejection of claim 1.
Consider claim 14, a computer program for detecting a fall of a person, the computer program including instructions for executing the steps of the method of claim 13, when run on a computer, Kechichian teaches, “there is provided a corresponding computer program which comprises program code means for causing a computer to perform the steps of the methods disclosed herein when said computer program is carried out on a computer as well as a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that stores therein a computer program product, which, when executed by a processor, causes the method disclosed herein to be performed.” See ¶ 0027.
Consider claim 15, a non-transitory computer readable data medium storing the computer program of claim 14. Kechichian ¶ 0027.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omer S. Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-5146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 8:00 pm 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, Brian A. Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/Omer S Khan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights