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 .
DETAILED ACTION
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/31/2026 & 12/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
FOREIGN PRIORITY
A claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C § 119 (a) - (d), which was contained in the Declaration and Power of Attorney filed on 12/17/2024 has been acknowledged. Acknowledgement of claimed foreign priority and receipt of priority documents is reflected in form PTO-326 Office Action Summary.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 7, 9, 16 & 18 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.
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 of this title, 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, 3, 6, 10, 12, 15 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair (U.S. Publication 2021/0027409) in view of Newman (U.S. Publication 2019/0281433)
& Ferguson (U.S. Publication 2011/0111728)
As to claims 1, 10 & 19, Nair discloses a camera (212, Fig. 2) arranged to capture video footage of an environment of a first individual; at least one processor; and non-transitory, computer-readable data storage comprising program instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the alert system to perform a set of operations ([0096-0097, 0099-0100] discloses computer system 700 includes a processor 702 & main memory 706. See camera device 212, Fig. 2) comprising: receiving the video footage of the environment of the first individual; applying a video analytics algorithm to the video footage to detect a potential emergency incident involving the first individual;
([0070] discloses the camera device may initiate capturing and recording of the audiovisual information including the one or more in vehicle activities, and transmit the recorded audiovisual information to the vehicle device 108 in real time. [0073] discloses the camera device 212 may be configured to process the recorded audiovisual information to detect the one or more emergency incidents associated with at least one of the user 102 or the vehicle 106. [0078] discloses the emergency detection module 218 may be configured to receive the recorded audiovisual information from the camera device 212. The emergency detection module 218 may be configured to process the recorded audiovisual information and/or the sensor data or signals to detect the one or more emergency incidents. The emergency detection module 218 may include a machine learning model that implements any suitable machine learning techniques, statistical techniques or probabilistic techniques for performing one or more incident or probabilistic techniques for performing one or more incident detection operations. 510, Fig. 5A/5B the real time audiovisual information is processed, the real-time audiovisual information is processed. The vehicle device 108 (or the application server 110) may be configured to process the real time audiovisual information (such as the recorded in vehicle activities) to detect one or more emergency incidents. The vehicle device 108 may analyze the real time audio and video data of the recorded audiovisual information to detect one or more threats or security concerns. At 514, an alert signal is generated. In an embodiment, the vehicle device 108 (or the application server 110) may be configured to generate the alert signal based on the detected one or more emergency incidents.)
in response to detecting the potential emergency incident involving the first individual,
(ii) causing the communication device of the second individual to output an alert, wherein the alert comprises (a) at least a portion of the video footage of the first individual;
([0050-0052, 0059, 0077] discloses based on one or more emergency incidents, the streaming module 216 may be configured to receive the recorded audiovisual information from the camera device 212. The streaming module 216 may be configured to communicate the streaming signal to the preferred contacts of the user 102 for streaming the audiovisual information in real time.)
Nair is silent to (i) identifying a communication device of a second individual based on an identifier of the communication device of the second individual being stored in association with an identifier of the first individual, and (ii) causing the communication device of the second individual to output an alert, wherein the alert comprises (a) at least a portion of the video footage of the first individual and (b) a prompt for approving or rejecting activation of an emergency function; determining whether the communication device of the second individual has received a user input comprising an approval or rejection of the activation of the emergency function; when the user input comprises an approval of the activation of the emergency function, proceeding to activate the emergency function by establishing a connection with a computing device at a public safety access point (PSAP) and sending to the computing device at the PSAP (i) at least the portion of the video footage of the first individual and (ii) a location of the environment of the first individual; and when the user input comprises a rejection of the activation of the emergency function, refraining from activating the emergency function.
However, Newman discloses (i) identifying a communication device of a second individual based on an identifier of the communication device of the second individual being stored in association with an identifier of the first individual (0074-0077, 0079, 0114 discloses a subject data store 210 that stores a plurality of subject records 212, where each respective subject record 212 in the plurality of subject records is associated with a corresponding subject and stores at least subject contact information 214 and a subject support list 216 that includes contact information 220 of each remote device 104 associated with the corresponding subject. Examiner submits Newman’s account identifier associated with the end user corresponds to the identifier of the first individual. Newman’s electronic address of the support members remote device corresponds to the identifier of the second individual communication device. Newman stores that remote device contact information within a subject record and support list associated with the corresponding subject. ). (ii) causing the communication device of the second individual to output an alert, wherein the alert comprises (a) at least a portion of the video footage of the first individual and (b) a prompt for approving or rejecting activation of an emergency function; ([0126-0128, 0135, 0154-0155] discloses Newman’s automatically generated medical alert GUI sent to the support members remote device is claimed alert. Newman’s video communication channel supplies the incident video at that remote device. Newman’s GUI controls, password/button interruption procedure, and support member options to reject or verify the alert supply the claimed prompt for approving or rejecting activation of the emergency function.)
determining whether the communication device of the second individual has received a user input comprising an approval or rejection of the activation of the emergency function; when the user input comprises an approval of the activation of the emergency function, when the user input comprises a rejection of the activation of the emergency function, refraining from activating the emergency function ([0134-0135] discloses verifying alerts wherein remote monitoring centers are either notified or not notified.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Nair’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to engage the correct support apparatus and prevent false emergency escalation.
Nair in view of Newman is silent to when the user input comprises an approval of the activation of the emergency function, proceeding to activate the emergency function by establishing a connection with a computing device at a public safety access point (PSAP) and sending to the computing device at the PSAP (i) at least the portion of the video footage of the first individual and (ii) a location of the environment of the first individual.
However, Ferguson discloses when the user input comprises an approval of the activation of the emergency function, proceeding to activate the emergency function by establishing a connection with a computing device at a public safety access point (PSAP) (Newman reference contains confirmation input supplies the claimed approval. [0057, 0110] discloses escalation code supplies the approved escalation to the PSAP. Newman’s confirmation causes Ferguson’s PSAP escalation procedure to be performed.) and sending to the computing device at the PSAP (i) at least the portion of the video footage of the first individual ([0054, 0110-0111] discloses video streaming from the wireless device is immediately initiated and sent via wireless or other indication networks to one or more members of the safety network (which may include a call center operated by a service provider) and public safety personnel.)
and (ii) a location of the environment of the first individual ([0055, 0059, 0117]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Nair in view of Newman’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to provide emergency supplies enhanced information directly to the PSAP while preserving the false alarm reduction obtained through secondary user verification.
As to claims 3 & 12, Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 & 10. In addition, Newman discloses wherein the prompt for approving or rejecting the activation of an emergency function is associated with a timer, wherein determining whether the communication device of the second individual has received a user input comprising an approval or rejection of the activation of the emergency function comprises determining that the timer has expired prior to receiving the user input, and wherein the set of operations further comprises proceeding to activate the emergency function based on determining that the timer has expired prior to receiving the user input. ([0155-0156])
As to claims 6 & 15, Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 & 10. In addition, Nair discloses wherein the video analytics algorithm comprises at least one of: a first video analytics algorithm for determining whether the first individual has fallen; a second video analytics algorithm for determining whether the first individual is engaged in physical violence; a third video analytics algorithm for determining whether the first individual has departed the environment; a fourth video analytics algorithm for detecting fire or smoke in the environment; or a fifth video analytics algorithm for detecting a weapon in the environment. ([0078])
As to claim 20, Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson discloses everything as disclosed in claim 19. In addition, Ferguson discloses wherein the set of operations are a first set of operations, and wherein the program instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the computing system to perform a second set of operations comprising: receiving, from the communication device of the second individual, a communication indicative of an emergency incident, wherein the communication is received in response to the actuation of a panic button on the communication device of the second individual, and wherein the communication comprises a location of the communication device of the second individual; in response to receiving the communication indicative of the emergency incident, establishing a connection with the computing device at the PSAP and sending to the computing device at the PSAP the location of the communication device of the second individual. ([0014, 0117])
Claims 2 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair (U.S. Publication 2021/0027409) in view of Newman (U.S. Publication 2019/0281433)
& Ferguson (U.S. Publication 2011/0111728) as applied in claims 1 & 10 above further in view of Chaco (U.S. Publication 2005/0219052)
As to claims 2 & 11, Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 10 but is silent to wherein the first individual is a dependent of the second individual, and wherein the identifier of the communication device of the second individual is stored in association with the identifier of the first individual based on the first individual being a dependent of the second individual.
However, Chaco discloses wherein the first individual is a dependent of the second individual, and wherein the identifier of the communication device of the second individual is stored in association with the identifier of the first individual based on the first individual being a dependent of the second individual. ([0012, 0043-0044, 0047] discloses an infant which is claimed first individual. Mother is second individual. Mothers RF badge is communication device transmitting a unique caretaker identifier. Infant identifier and mother/caretaker device identifier are stored in association. The association is made in the disclosed mother infant caretaker relationship.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to ensure that an emergency involving a dependent is communicated to the device of the parent or caretaker responsible for that dependent.
Claims 4 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair (U.S. Publication 2021/0027409) in view of Newman (U.S. Publication 2019/0281433)
& Ferguson (U.S. Publication 2011/0111728) as applied in claims 1 & 10 above further in view of Bozik (U.S. Publication 2019/0174288)
As to claims 4 & 13, Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 10 but is silent to wherein the alert further comprises a prompt for an additional user input comprising (i) a type of the emergency incident involving the first individual or (ii) a type of desired emergency response to the emergency incident involving the first individual, wherein the set of operations further comprises receiving data representing the additional user input, and wherein activating the emergency function further comprises sending an indication of the additional user input to the computing device at the PSAP.
However, Bozik discloses wherein the alert further comprises a prompt for an additional user input comprising (i) a type of the emergency incident involving the first individual or (ii) a type of desired emergency response to the emergency incident involving the first individual, wherein the set of operations further comprises receiving data representing the additional user input, and wherein activating the emergency function further comprises sending an indication of the additional user input to the computing device at the PSAP. ([0003, 0026, 0031, 0034-0037] discloses selectable emergency indicators and emergency characterization submenu equate t the additional prompt. The selected emergency type or characterization is the additional user input. Selected input is included in the emergency message and transmitted to an emergency dispatch center expressly identified as including a PSAP.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to provide the PSAP with incident specific information needed to select and dispatch an appropriate emergency response.
Claims 5 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair (U.S. Publication 2021/0027409) in view of Newman (U.S. Publication 2019/0281433)
& Ferguson (U.S. Publication 2011/0111728) as applied in claims 1 & 10 above further in view of Hanna (U.S. Publication 2006/0045354)
As to claims 5 & 14, Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 10 but is silent to the set of operations further comprising automatically tuning the video analytics algorithm based on the user input comprising an approval or rejection of the activation of the emergency function.
However, Hanna discloses the set of operations further comprising automatically tuning the video analytics algorithm based on the user input comprising an approval or rejection of the activation of the emergency function. ([0018, 0026, 0033-0035] discloses approval of emergency activation identifies the detected potential incident as a true alarm event. True/False user feedback is used to modify learned objects, dynamically distinguish alarm from non-alarm events, maximize their separation, and establish revised detection criteria.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to future emergency detection accuracy and reduce repeated false positive emergency alerts.
Claims 8 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nair (U.S. Publication 2021/0027409) in view of Newman (U.S. Publication 2019/0281433)
& Ferguson (U.S. Publication 2011/0111728) as applied in claims 1 & 10 above further in view of Shafri (U.S. Publication 2023/0069314)
As to claims 8 & 17, Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 10 but is silent to the set of operations further comprising: prior to applying the video analytics algorithm to the video footage, receiving, from the communication device of the second individual, data identifying a time period or a location, and wherein applying the video analytics algorithm to the video footage comprises applying the video analytics algorithm to the video footage only during the identified time period or only when the environment of the first individual is at the identified location.
However, Shafri discloses the set of operations further comprising: prior to applying the video analytics algorithm to the video footage, receiving, from the communication device of the second individual, data identifying a time period or a location, and wherein applying the video analytics algorithm to the video footage comprises applying the video analytics algorithm to the video footage only during the identified time period or only when the environment of the first individual is at the identified location.([0099-0100, 0103-0105] discloses temporary video analytics rule corresponds to application of a video analytics algorithm. Duration, destination, geographic region or waypoint received through the communication device supplies the selected time period or location.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Nair in view of Newman & Ferguson’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to focus emergency monitoring on the times and locations where monitoring is needed, conserve processing and communications resources, and reduce irrelevant emergency detections.
CONCLUSION
No prior art for claims 7, 9, 16 & 18 have been found in their current form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights