DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to communications filed July 06, 2026. Claims 21, 29, 33 and 40 have been amended. Claims 24 and 37 have been cancelled. Claims 41 and 42 have been newly added. Claims 21-23, 25-36 and 38-42 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
All previous 35 USC § 101 rejections have been overcome by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21-23, 25-26, 29-36 and 38-42 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ecker et al. (Ecker; US Pub No. 2009/0278934 A1) in view of Dwight et al. (Dwight; US Patent No. 5,905,436).
As per claim 21, Ecker teaches a system comprising one or more computers and one or more storage devices on which are stored instructions that are operable, when executed by the one or more computers, to cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
determining, using occupancy data and a period of time since a capture of the occupancy
data, whether to perform a fall detection analysis (paragraph [0042], lines 18-23)…
in response to determining to perform the fall detection analysis, sending a command that
requests fall-detection data, the fall-detection data being different data than the occupancy data (paragraph [0042], lines 20-23; paragraph [0046]);
in response to receiving the fall-detection data, determining, using the fall-detection data,
whether a fall event likely occurred (paragraph [0046], lines 29-37; paragraph [0063], lines 1-18); and
in response to determining that a fall event likely occurred, performing one or more
actions for the fall event (paragraph [0063], lines 11-12).
Ecker does not expressly teach the determining comprising:
determining, using the occupancy data and the period of time, a likelihood of a fall event;
determining whether the likelihood of the fall event satisfies a threshold; and
in response to determining that the likelihood of the fall event satisfies the threshold,
determining to perform the fall detection analysis.
Dwight teaches the determining comprising:
determining, using the occupancy data and the period of time, a likelihood of a fall event (col. 8, lines 20-24: determining the area is occupied and monitoring for a period of time);
determining whether the likelihood of the fall event satisfies a threshold (col. 8, lines 22-24: no movement for a length of time); and
in response to determining that the likelihood of the fall event satisfies the threshold,
determining to perform the fall detection analysis (col. 8, lines 22-28: no movement for a length of time, scanning the lower zone area of a room).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the use occupancy and timing data as taught by Dwight, since Dwight states in column 8 that such a modification would result in accurately detecting a fall event.
As per claim 22, Ecker in view of Dwight further teaches the system of claim 21, wherein determining whether a fall event likely occurred uses the fall-detection data and the occupancy data (Ecker, paragraph [0042], lines 18-23).
As per claim 23, Ecker teaches the system of claim 21.
Ecker does not expressly teach wherein the occupancy data is for a first period of time, the operations comprising:
determining, using second occupancy data, that a room was likely vacant during a second, different period of time; and
in response to determining that the room was vacated, determining not to perform fall
detection analysis based on the second occupancy data.
Dwight teaches wherein the occupancy data is for a first period of time, the operations comprising:
determining, using second occupancy data, that a room was likely vacant during a second, different period of time; and
in response to determining that the room was vacated, determining not to perform fall
detection analysis based on the second occupancy data (col. 4, lines 1-10; col. 8, lines 20-28: continuously making an occupancy determination and only triggering fall detection when an area has been determined to be occupied).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the continuous occupancy determination as taught by Dwight, since Dwight states in column 4, lines 1-10 that such a modification would result in accurately determining an abnormal event relative to a specific user.
As per claim 25, Ecker teaches the system of claim 21.
Ecker does not expressly teach wherein determining whether to perform the fall detection analysis uses i) the occupancy data, ii) the period of time since the capture of the occupancy data, and iii) historical data for prior fall events or previously verified fall events.
Dwight teaches wherein determining whether to perform the fall detection analysis uses i) the occupancy data (col. 8, lines 20-21), ii) the period of time since the capture of the occupancy data (col. 8, lines 22-24), and iii) historical data for prior fall events or previously verified fall events (col. 4, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the use occupancy, timing and historical data as taught by Dwight, since Dwight states in column 8 that such a modification would result in accurately detecting a fall event for a specific user.
As per claim 26, Ecker in view of Dwight further teaches the system of claim 21, wherein determining, using the fall-detection data and the occupancy data (Ecker, paragraph [0042], lines 18-23), whether the fall event occurred comprises:
determining a fall classification score representing a likelihood of the fall event; and
determining, using the fall classification score, whether the fall event occurred (Ecker, paragraph [0009], lines 23-31).
As per claim 29, Ecker in view of Dwight further teaches the system of claim 21, the operations comprising:
receiving, from one or more sensors, occupancy data representing occupancy in one or
more rooms at a property, at least one of the sensors being physically located in at least one of
the one or more rooms (Ecker, paragraph [0042], lines 13-20).
As per claim 30, Ecker in view of Dwight further teaches the system of claim 29, wherein:
receiving, from one or more sensors, occupancy data representing occupancy in one or
more rooms at a property comprises determining, using occupancy data, movement events
indicating a first room is vacated and a second room is occupied (Ecker, paragraph [0042]); and
sending the command that requests fall-detection data comprises sending the command
that requests fall-detection data for the second room (Ecker, paragraph [0042]).
As per claim 31, Ecker in view of Dwight further teaches the system of claim 21, wherein sending a command that requests fall-detection data comprises:
sending, to a device separate from the one or more computers, the command that requests
fall-detection data (Ecker, paragraph [0042], lines 18-23: patient fall prediction system).
As per claim 32, Ecker teaches the system of claim 21.
Ecker does not expressly each wherein the fall-detection data comprises one or more:
location data;
time data;
data representing a period of inactivity; or
data representing an impact.
Dwight teaches wherein the fall-detection data comprises one or more:
location data;
time data;
data representing a period of inactivity; or
data representing an impact (col. 4, lines 24-27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the data message as taught by Dwight, since Dwight states that such a modification would result in communicating pertinent information to allow for providing a user with the most useful assistance possible.
As per claim 33, (see rejection of claim 21 above) one or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by one or more computers, cause the one or more computers to perform operations comprising:
determining
using i) occupancy data, ii) a period of time since the capture of the occupancy data, and iii) historical data for prior fall events or previously verified fall events (Ecker, paragraph [0009]: known motion detection signature – “previously verified fall events”);
in response to determining to perform the fall detection analysis, sending a command that
requests fall-detection data, the fall-detection data being different data than the occupancy data;
in response to receiving the fall-detection data, determining, using the fall-detection data,
whether a fall event likely occurred; and
in response to determining that a fall event likely occurred, performing one or more
actions for the fall event.
As per claim 34, (see rejection of claim 22 above) the one or more computer storage media of claim 33, wherein determining whether a fall event likely occurred uses the fall-detection data and the occupancy data.
As per claim 35, (see rejection of claim 23 above) the one or more computer storage media of claim 33, wherein the occupancy data is for a first period of time, the operations comprising:
determining, using second occupancy data, that a room was likely vacant during a
second, different period of time; and
in response to determining that the room was vacated, determining not to perform fall
detection analysis based on the second occupancy data.
As per claim 36, (see rejection of claim 24 above) the one or more computer storage media of claim 33, wherein determining, using
the occupancy data and the period of time since the capture of the occupancy data, whether to
perform the fall detection analysis comprises:
determining, using the occupancy data and the period of time, a likelihood of a fall event;
determining whether the likelihood of the fall event satisfies a threshold; and
in response to determining that the likelihood of the fall event satisfies the threshold,
determining to perform the fall detection analysis.
As per claim 38, (see rejection of claim 26 above) the one or more computer storage media of claim 33, wherein determining, using the fall-detection data and the occupancy data, whether the fall event occurred comprises:
determining a fall classification score representing a likelihood of the fall event; and
determining, using the fall classification score, whether the fall event occurred.
As per claim 40, (see rejection of claim 21 above) a computer-implemented method comprising:
determining, using occupancy data and a period of time since a capture of the occupancy
data, whether to perform a fall detection analysis, the determining comprising:
determining, using the occupancy data and the period of time, a likelihood of a fall event;
determining whether the likelihood of the fall event satisfies a threshold; and
in response to determining that the likelihood of the fall event satisfies the threshold, determining to perform the fall detection analysis;
in response to determining to perform the fall detection analysis, performing fall detection analysis comprising:
sending a command that requests fall-detection data, the fall-detection data being different data than the occupancy data; and
in response to receiving the fall-detection data, determining, using the fall-detection data,
whether a fall event likely occurred; and
in response to determining that a fall event likely occurred, performing one or more
actions for the fall event.
As per claim 39, (see rejection of claim 32 above) the one or more computer storage media of claim 33, wherein the fall-detection
data comprises one or more:
location data;
time data;
data representing a period of inactivity; or
data representing an impact.
As per claim 42, Ecker in view of Dwight further teaches the media of claim 33, the operations comprising:
receiving, from one or more sensors, occupancy data representing occupancy in one or
more rooms at a property, at least one of the sensors being physically located in at least one of
the one or more rooms (Ecker, paragraph [0034]: camera system).
Claims 27, 28 and 41 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ecker in view of Dwight as applied above, and further in view of Hausdorff et al. (Hausdorff; US Pub No. 2012/0101411 A1).
As per claim 27, Ecker in view of Dwight teaches the system of claim 21.
Ecker in view of Dwight does not expressly teach the operations comprising:
in response to determining that a fall event likely occurred, initiating between a device at
a location of the fall event and a separate system, a two-way communication link.
Hausdorff teaches the operations comprising:
in response to determining that a fall event likely occurred, initiating between a device at
a location of the fall event and a separate system, a two-way communication link (paragraphs [0135] & [0136]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the two-way communication as taught by Hausdorff, since Hausdorff states in paragraph [0136] that such a modification would result in receiving verification from a user that assistance is needed.
As per claim 28, Ecker in view of Dwight teaches the system of claim 21.
Ecker in view of Dwight does not expressly teach wherein performing the one or more actions for the fall event comprises:
presenting results of the fall-detection analysis; and
requesting confirmation of the fall event.
Hausdorff teaches wherein performing the one or more actions for the fall event comprises:
presenting results of the fall-detection analysis; and
requesting confirmation of the fall event (paragraphs [0135] & [0136]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the fall detection analysis as taught by Hausdorff, since Hausdorff states in paragraph [0136] that such a modification would result in receiving verification from a user that assistance is needed.
As per claim 41, (see rejection of claim 27 above) the media of claim 33, the operations comprising:
in response to determining that a fall event likely occurred, initiating between a device at
a location of the fall event and a separate system, a two-way communication link.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 33 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed July 06, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of “Dwight does not mention the use of a likelihood” (Remarks, pg. 10 of 12), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Dwight teaches collecting occupancy data over a period of time and based upon determining that a room is occupied during a monitoring period, beginning a fall detection process, as there is a possible likelihood of a fall simply based upon the fact that the room is occupied during a monitoring period. Therefore, the combination of Ecker in view of Dwight teaches the limitations of claim 21 and 40 as outlined in the above rejection. The above argument is applied equally to all dependent claims.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, Quan-Zhen Wang 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-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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights