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
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 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.
Claim(s) 7, 12, 13, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinesen (US 20150018635) in view of Winick (US 20050128068).
Regarding claim 7, One or more non-transitory computer storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving, from a wearable electronic device, a first communication indicative of a medical event detected by the wearable electronic device and associated with a person wearing the wearable electronic device; (“The system may be arranged to compare the first signal parameter to a threshold and trigger an alarm event in case the first signal parameter exceeds the threshold, such as an alarm event comprising at least one of: a visual alarm signal, an acoustic alarm signal, and a tactile alarm signal. The system may be arranged to alarm the pregnant woman, and/or medical staff, and thus the alarm may be communicated to several locations, e.g. wirelessly such as via the internet and/or a mobile phone net of the like” Dinesen: paragraph 33)
The claimed and based on the receiving, transmitting a second communication to a connected home system, the connected home system comprising a speaker and at least one communication interface configured to receive wireless communications from the wearable electronic device and communicate with a communication network using at least one of a wired connection and a wireless connection, wherein the second communication causes the connected home system to emit an audible indication is not specifically disclosed by Dinesen. Winick teaches sending medical alarms to a home security system (“The following vehicle alarm functions can be sent to the home security system 100 from the VCS 180: arm partition, disarm partition, bypass, sound alarm (siren), cause panic alarm (including dial out), cause medical alarm, trigger output, X10 output, and send page via pager.” Winick: paragraph 81). Modifying Dinesen to additionally send alarms to a home security system would increase the overall utility of the system by providing the user with additional alerting means. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dinesen according to Winick.
Regarding claim 12, The media of claim 7, wherein the medical event comprises an irregular heartbeat. (“In some embodiments, the processing unit is arranged to perform an algorithm serving to process recorded sound from the sound sensor with the purpose of determining if the recorded sound is sound from an umbilical artery or sound from a uterine artery. This can be determined from the position of the sound sensor and/or from the heart rate and other characteristics of the sound from the blood flow.” Dinesen: paragraph 32)
Regarding claim 13, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 7 stated above.
Regarding claim 18, The method of claim 13, wherein the first communication is transmitted over a cellular network. (“The system may be arranged to alarm the pregnant woman, and/or medical staff, and thus the alarm may be communicated to several locations, e.g. wirelessly such as via the internet and/or a mobile phone net of the like.” Dinesen: paragraph 33)
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 12 stated above.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinesen in view of Winick and further in view of Miller (US 6061430).
Regarding claim 10, The media of claim 7, wherein the method further comprises: based on the receiving, transmitting, to a medical facility, a fourth communication comprising information regarding the medical event is not specifically disclosed by Dinesen and Winich. Miller teaches a premises monitoring system that teaches contacting various emergency response locations in response to an emergency signal being indicated (“In the latter regard, and as will be appreciated, the preregistered telephone numbers may correspond with a call forwarding station number, a premises monitoring service company, an emergency response station (e.g., fire department, police department, hospital, etc.), a mobile telephone device, a relative/friend (e.g., in the event of a medical alert) etc., thereby enhancing the likelihood of human contact/response to a sensed predetermined condition.” Miller: column 2, lines 46-56). Modifying Dinesen and Winick to notify additional emergency response centers would increase the overall safety of the system by providing additional means for receiving help. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dinesen and Winick according to Miller.
Regarding claim 11, The media of claim 10, wherein the method further comprises: based on the receiving, transmitting, to an emergency response center, a fifth communication comprising information regarding the medical event. (“In the latter regard, and as will be appreciated, the preregistered telephone numbers may correspond with a call forwarding station number, a premises monitoring service company, an emergency response station (e.g., fire department, police department, hospital, etc.), a mobile telephone device, a relative/friend (e.g., in the event of a medical alert) etc., thereby enhancing the likelihood of human contact/response to a sensed predetermined condition.” Miller: column 2, lines 46-56)
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 10 stated above.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected as claim 11 stated above.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinesen in view of Winick and further in view of Haveri (US 20190362822).
Regarding claim 20, The method of claim 13, wherein the medical event comprises a fall is not specifically disclosed by Dinesen and Winick. Haveri discloses a monitoring device that teaches monitoring for falls (“The respiration sensor 100a, 100b may also provide skin temperature, body position, movement, fall detection (e.g., through an accelerometer 1150), sensor placement, and the like.” Haveri: paragraph 167). Adding a fall detection sensor to Dinesen and Winick would increase the overall safety of the system by providing additional emergency situations that can be detected and alerted for. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dinesen and Winick according to Haveri.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
Claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose nor suggest a method for detecting a medical event at a wearable device, communicating that event toa first mobile device whereupon receiving the first communication the mobile device sends a second communication to a connected home system that receives the second communication and activates an audible alarm.
The closest prior art to Dinesen (US 20150018635) discloses sending multiple alerts to different receives but does not disclose nor teach any chaining of communication from the alert device to a mobile device and then from the mobile device to a connected home system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the following:
Argument A: the combination of Dinesen and Winick does not disclose the claimed subject matter as Winick teaches receiving alarm functions from a vehicle control system and not from a wearable device.
Examiner’s Response: Winick is being used to teach that the transmission of a sensed alert from a device through an intermediary can ultimately be transmitted to a connected home system and not specifically the form of the transmission being from the vehicle system of Winick. The combination would therefore be proper to teach the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TRAVIS R HUNNINGS whose telephone number is (571)272-3118. The examiner can normally be reached M: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p, 8:30-10p; T: 6-7:30a, 12-4p, 7:30p-12a; W: 6-7:30a, 9:30a-4:45p; H: 6-7:30a, 8:15a-4:45p; F: 12:00-4:45p.
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 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.
/TRAVIS R HUNNINGS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights