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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawai (US
2022/0126896) in view of Chuang (US 2016/0260310).
Regarding claims 1, 16, Kawai discloses a method of operating safety lighting (alarm lamp) when a fall is
predicted or detected (page 1, [0004]) comprising: predicting or detecting a fall within a monitored area
(page 7, [0094]); triggering a first illumination state based on the predicted or detected fall (alarm lamp
lit in page 1, [0004]). Claim 16, camera (monitoring camera 101 in fig. 1).
Kawai discloses all the limitations set forth above but fails to explicitly disclose detecting a sustained
fall; and triggering a second illumination state based on a detected sustained fall.
However, Chuang discloses a sustained fall (patient falls in page 2, [0034]); and triggering a second
illumination state (red light) based on a detected sustained fall (page 2, [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
first file to incorporate the feature of Chuang within the system of Kawai in order to monitor the fallen
of a person who may have difficulty living alone thereby maximizing the safety of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Kawai discloses triggering a return to a default illumination state when a non-felled
position is detected (page 1, [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang further
discloses wherein the first illumination state comprises a change in an illumination property from a prior
illumination state, the illumination property comprising at least one of intensity, color or flashing (page
2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 4, Kawai discloses triggering a light (camera 101) outside the monitored area based on
the detected sustained fall (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Kawai discloses holding the second illumination state based on a plurality of updated detections of a sustained fall; wherein the detected sustained fall and the plurality of updated detections are based on data received from a camera (page 2, [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang further
discloses increasing an intensity of the second illumination state based on a plurality of
updated detections of a sustained fall (page 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang further
discloses wherein the first illumination state comprises a gradual increase in an illumination property
over a preset time (page 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang further
discloses wherein the preset time is selected from a plurality of preset times, each of the plurality of
preset times corresponding to a type of predicted or detected fall (page 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 9, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang further
discloses wherein the gradual increase is a linear increase (page 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang
further discloses wherein the gradual increase is a non-linear increase (page 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 11, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang
further discloses wherein the gradual increase is algorithmic (page 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 12, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang
further discloses wherein increasing the illumination property comprises increasing an illumination
property in a subset of lights (page 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang
further discloses wherein the subset of lights is selected based on location of the predicted or detected
fall (page 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang
further discloses wherein the subset of lights is selected based on a type of predicted or detected fall
(page 2, [0034]).
Regarding claim 15, Kawai and Chuang disclose all the limitations set forth in claim 1 and Chuang
further discloses determining if a subject is a person to be monitored based on data associated
with the predicted or detected fall (page 2, [0034]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kawai and Chang are directed to the same field of endeavor, therefore the combination is indeed proper.
According to Applicant’s argument on page 6of 9, Chuang fails to disclose “ triggering a second illumination state based on a detected sustained fall”. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant because Chuang (the secondary reference) clearly discloses LED lights 120 including green light, red light; the green light is illuminated when the patient sustained fall or is injured (page 2, [0034]).
According to Applicant’s argument on page 7 of 9, Chuang fails to disclose “ holding the second illumination state based on a plurality of updated detections of a sustained fall”. The examiner strongly disagrees with the Applicant because Chuang (secondary reference) firmly discloses LED lights 120 including green light and red light, wherein the green light is illuminated and stay on when a sustained fall is detected (page 2, [0034]).
For at least the above reason, the rejection of the claims is sustained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
Doezema (US 2013/0143519) discloses fall-responsive emergency device, system, and method.
Gudgel et al. (US 2010/0246328) discloses security system.
Akita et al. (US 4,790,403) discloses output device.
Origuchi et al. (US 2011/0216108) discloses plasma method.
Dauphin et al. (US 2025/0061786) discloses lighting system fall risk.
Subramanian et al. (US 2022/0051807) discloses dynamic risk assessment.
Ten Kate et al. (US 2018/0211505) discloses checkin button.
Belanger et al. (US 2015/0173654) discloses activity method.
Thomas et al. (US 9,159,215) discloses skill game.
Kusens (US 9,159,215) discloses method perimeter.
Musick (US 5,844,488) discloses bed sensor and alarm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to DANIEL PREVIL whose telephone number is (571)272-2971. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:30 AM -6:00 PM.
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,
Wang Quan-Zhen 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-centert 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.
DP
July 24, 2026
/DANIEL PREVIL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights