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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 10, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 18, 2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,172. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,172 recites a computer-implemented method, a computer program product, and a system for emergency event detection and response, the method comprising:
receiving, at a radio frequency radar of an emergency response system, one or more radio signals transmitted by one or more wireless devices associated with a user of the emergency response system (col. 10, lines 34-37);
determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event based at least in part on a signal strength of the one or more received radio signals (col. 10, lines 38-40);
instructing the one or more wireless devices to output a voice prompt requesting confirmation that the emergency event has occurred (col. 10, lines 45-47);
transmitting, responsive to determining that the emergency event has not occurred based on audio data received at the one or more wireless devices subsequent to the voice prompt being output, a notification to a caregiver client device of a caregiver specified by the user (col. 10, lines 48-53); and
initiating a call between the one or more wireless devices and the caregiver client device (col. 10, lines 55-56).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,172 recites wherein determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event based at least in part on a signal strength of the one or more received radio signals comprises:
comparing the signal strength of the one or more received radio signals to training data indicating physical changes in a surrounding environment of the user (col. 10, lines 38-40); and
responsive to determining that the signal strength of the one or more received radio signals deviates from the training data by less than a threshold amount, determining the possible occurrence of the emergency event (col. 10, lines 41-44).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,207,172 recites:
providing for display on the caregiver client device a prompt enabling the caregiver to add a provider to the call (col. 10, lines 57-59); and
initiating, responsive to the caregiver selecting the prompt, a conference bridge between the one or more wireless devices, the caregiver client device, and a provider client device (col. 10, lines 60-63).
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,603. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,603 recites a computer-implemented method, a computer program product, and a system for emergency event detection and response, the method comprising:
receiving, at a radio frequency radar of an emergency response system, one or more radio signals transmitted by one or more wireless devices associated with a user of the emergency response system (col. 10, lines 34-36);
determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event based at least in part on a signal strength of the one or more received radio signals (col. 10, lines 37-38);
instructing the one or more wireless devices to output a voice prompt requesting confirmation that the emergency event has occurred (col. 10, lines 39-41);
transmitting, responsive to determining that the emergency event has not occurred based on audio data received at the one or more wireless devices subsequent to the voice prompt being output, a notification to a caregiver client device of a caregiver specified by the user (col. 10, lines 42-47); and
initiating a call between the one or more wireless devices and the caregiver client device (col. 10, lines 48-49).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,703 recites wherein determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event based at least in part on a signal strength of the one or more received radio signals comprises:
comparing the signal strength of the one or more received radio signals to training data indicating physical changes in a surrounding environment of the user (col. 10, lines 66-67); and
responsive to determining that the signal strength of the one or more received radio signals deviates from the training data by less than a threshold amount, determining the possible occurrence of the emergency event (col. 11, lines 1-4).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,703 recites:
providing for display on the caregiver client device a prompt enabling the caregiver to add a provider to the call (col. 10, lines 52-54); and
initiating, responsive to the caregiver selecting the prompt, a conference bridge between the one or more wireless devices, the caregiver client device, and a provider client device (col. 10, lines 55-58).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,603 recites monitoring health data of the user using a wearable wireless device, the health data including at least one of the user's heart rate or activity data (col. 10, lines 59-62).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, claims 4 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,603 recites wherein determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event further comprises:
receiving second audio data associated with the user of the emergency response system and collected by the one or more wireless devices (col. 11, lines 25-28);
comparing the received second audio data to a noise profile associated with the emergency event (col. 10, lines 66-67); and
responsive to the received second audio data having at least a threshold level of similarity to the noise profile, determining the possible occurrence of the emergency event (col. 11, lines 1-4).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, claims 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,603 recites wherein determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event further comprises:
receiving second audio data associated with the user of the emergency response system and collected by the one or more wireless devices (col. 11, lines 25-28);
performing voice recognition on the received second audio data (col. 11, lines 8-9);
comparing the recognized second audio data to an emergency event language model (col. 11, lines 10-11); and
determining, based on the comparison, the possible occurrence of the emergency event (col. 11, lines 12-13).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, claims 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,706,603 recites wherein determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event further comprises:
receiving second audio data associated with the user of the emergency response system and collected by the one or more wireless devices (col. 11, lines 25-28);
performing voice recognition on the received second audio data (col. 11, lines 17-18);
comparing the recognized second audio data to a list of keywords (col. 11, lines 19-20); and
responsive to the recognized second audio data matching at least one keyword on the list of keywords, determining the possible occurrence of the emergency event (col. 11, lines 21-23).
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,064,339. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons:
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,064,339 recites a computer-implemented method, a computer program product, and a system for emergency event detection and response, the method comprising:
receiving, at a radio frequency radar of an emergency response system, one or more radio signals transmitted by one or more wireless devices associated with a user of the emergency response system (col. 10, lines 26-29);
determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event based at least in part on a signal strength of the one or more received radio signals (col. 10, lines 30-31);
instructing the one or more wireless devices to output a voice prompt requesting confirmation that the emergency event has occurred (col. 10, lines 32-34);
transmitting, responsive to determining that the emergency event has not occurred based on audio data received at the one or more wireless devices subsequent to the voice prompt being output, a notification to a caregiver client device of a caregiver specified by the user (col. 10, lines 35-40); and
initiating a call between the one or more wireless devices and the caregiver client device (col. 10, lines 41-42).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,064,339 recites wherein determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event based at least in part on a signal strength of the one or more received radio signals comprises:
comparing the signal strength of the one or more received radio signals to training data indicating physical changes in a surrounding environment of the user (col. 10, lines 53-54); and
responsive to determining that the signal strength of the one or more received radio signals deviates from the training data by less than a threshold amount, determining the possible occurrence of the emergency event (col. 10, lines 55-58).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,064,339 recites:
providing for display on the caregiver client device a prompt enabling the caregiver to add a provider to the call (col. 10, lines 43-45); and
initiating, responsive to the caregiver selecting the prompt, a conference bridge between the one or more wireless devices, the caregiver client device, and a provider client device (col. 10, lines 46-49).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, claims 2 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,064,339 recites wherein determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event further comprises:
receiving second audio data associated with the user of the emergency response system and collected by the one or more wireless devices (col. 11, lines 13-17);
comparing the received second audio data to a noise profile associated with the emergency event (col. 10, lines 53-54); and
responsive to the received second audio data having at least a threshold level of similarity to the noise profile, determining the possible occurrence of the emergency event (col. 10, lines 55-58).
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, claims 3 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,064,339 recites wherein determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event further comprises:
receiving second audio data associated with the user of the emergency response system and collected by the one or more wireless devices (col. 11, lines 13-17);
performing voice recognition on the received second audio data (col. 10, lines 62-63);
comparing the recognized second audio data to an emergency event language model (col. 10, lines 64-65); and
determining, based on the comparison, the possible occurrence of the emergency event (col. 10, lines 66-67).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, claims 4 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,064,339 recites wherein determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event further comprises:
receiving second audio data associated with the user of the emergency response system and collected by the one or more wireless devices (col. 11, lines 13-17);
performing voice recognition on the received second audio data (col. 11, lines 4-5);
comparing the recognized second audio data to a list of keywords (col. 11, lines 6-7); and
responsive to the recognized second audio data matching at least one keyword on the list of keywords, determining the possible occurrence of the emergency event (col. 11, lines 8-10).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed pending the Applicant overcoming the double patenting rejections above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Cho et al. (US 2014/0253326) as cited in IDS dated March 10, 2025 discloses a computer-implemented method, a computer program product, and a system for emergency event detection and response, the method comprising: receiving, at a radio frequency radar of an emergency response system, one or more radio signals transmitted by one or more wireless devices associated with a user of the emergency response system (i.e., receiving an alarm sound from alarm device 10 as described in paragraphs 0056-0058); and determining a possible occurrence of an emergency event based at least in part on a signal strength of the one or more received radio signals (i.e., analyzing the received information as described in paragraphs 0059, 0063 and 0105).
Similarly, Koverzin et al. (US 2010/0286490) as cited in IDS dated March 10, 2025 discloses interactive patient monitoring system using speech recognition. Koverzin et al. also discloses instructing the one or more wireless devices to output a voice prompt requesting confirmation that the emergency event has occurred (i.e., verbal interaction with the subject including generating synthesized speech having a question to elicit a verbal response from the subject as described in paragraph 0017).
However, none of the references, taken either alone or in combination teaches or suggest “transmitting, responsive to determining that the emergency event has not occurred based on audio data received at the one or more wireless devices subsequent to the voice prompt being output, a notification to a caregiver client device of a caregiver specified by the user; and initiating a call between the one or more wireless devices and the caregiver client device.” As cited in independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Therefore, the Examiner allows these independent claims 1, 8 and 15 at least for the reasons discussed above in combination with all other features recited within claims.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, they are also allowed by virtue of their dependency.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE CAI whose telephone number is (571)272-7798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:00 AM-5:00 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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached on (571)270-5371. 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.
/Wayne H Cai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
