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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 50, Line 25: A verb is needed before the word “commands”.
Paragraph 106, Line 6: The storage device is numbered –325—elsewhere in the specification.
Paragraph 131, Line 3: The user interaction page referred to here is –1155--.
Paragraph 138, Line 2: There is no button “1216” in Figure 13. This button is found in Figures 12A and 12B.
Paragraph 139, Line 2: There is no button “1218” in Figure 13. This button is found in Figures 12A and 12B.
Paragraph 140, Line 2: There is no button “1220” in Figure 13. This button is found in Figures 12A and 12B.
Paragraph 211, Line 2: The word “commends” should be replaced with the word –commands--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims pertain to very similar subject matter. Each independent claim of the current application has merely replaced the conditions of receiving an indication from the smartphone that the smartphone moved and determining that a user interaction occurred based upon the indication that the smartphone moved with the subject matter of dependent claim 3 of the ‘807 reference, which was objected to in an Office action as containing allowable subject matter. Furthermore, a “change in location” of a smartphone is merely another method of expressing the fact that the smartphone has moved.
The claims of the ‘807 reference do not mention a microphone; however, the claims do mention detecting one or more non-verbal sounds via a smartphone. As every smartphone uses a microphone or other type of sound transducer to detect sounds, this is considered an obvious variation on the prior art.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,807 in view of Schultz et al [U.S. 9,375,142].
The claims of the ‘807 reference do mention receiving information using a Global Positioning System (GPS) to detect movement of the smartphone; however, there is no mention of receiving this indication during a predetermined time period.
Gathering data over a time period is not new when monitoring a patient or person under care. The monitoring and intervention system taught by Schultz uses a number of sensors in order to detect different parameters of a patient. In addition to the sensors associated with a unit (No. 107), sensors outside of the bed located in tablets and smartphones (Col. 3, Lns. 33-35) can also be used to gather additional data. More importantly, the reference record patient parameter values over a time period (Col. 2, Lns. 59-61) and analyzes these values to determine their range. If a set of received parameters exceeds a normal range, then a worker or caregiver may be alerted (No. 613) to the parameter change.
The obvious advantage of the Schultz reference is that it provides a range in which parameters may be sensed rather than one particular value. If one and only one value is used as an alert level, then nuisance alarms may be sent, thereby reducing confidence in the alert system. And the claimed invention of the ‘807 reference would benefit from a system that would increase confidence in its system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to sense motion during a predetermined time period for the purpose of increasing confidence in the system.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,807 in view of Ogaz [US 2017/0221336].
For claim 15, the claims of the ‘807 reference do not mention generating a profile to transmit a notification message indicating a change in location.
User profiles have been used in monitoring systems in the past. The feedback system taught by Ogaz can create a voice profile associated with a user (Paragraph 102). The device can evaluate sensor data received related to the user to determine if an alert is required based on a profile (Abstract). The feedback device used in the Ogaz reference can send a signal to a smartphone (Paragraph 111).
The obvious advantage of creating a user profile is that the conditions for alert can be personalized to one particular user. This allows a device to give more targeted and personalized alerts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a profile of a user using the ’807 claimed invention in order to detect and receive a more personalized alert.
Aside from the double patenting rejections above, the claims do contain allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The original claims of the parent application U.S. 18/315,188 merely recited a computer device to be used with a caregiver and user in order to store user registration information, store caregiver information, and then continuously monitor for a user interaction and receive a user interaction with a client device. These claims were rejected under a combination of Rufo et al [US 2018/0342329], which taught a computer device that stored caregiver information as well as monitored for a user interaction and received a user interaction; in addition to the Goldberg et al [U.S. 8,882,666] reference that stored user registration information for a senior user. The Applicant then amended “client device” to read “smartphone” as well as incorporated objected subject matter that more specifically claimed the crux of the patentable subject matter. That is, determining that a user interaction occurred based on an indication that the smartphone moved or changed location as opposed to a generic “client device”. This subject matter has been incorporated into each independent claim of the current application.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al [US 2018/0075204] improves communications between users to build supportive relationships.
Dunstan et al [U.S. 11,056,235] teaches an engagement and care support platform.
Dunstan et al [U.S. 11,393,585] is an engagement and care support platform.
Harr et al [U.S. 11,688,516] teaches an alert system for care support platforms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN A. TWEEL JR whose telephone number is (571)272-2969. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
JAT
1/13/2026
/JOHN A TWEEL JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689