DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application: Claims 1-20 are present for examination at this time.
Claims 1,5-7, 15, and 19 are rejected.
Claims 2-4, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 are objected to.
Please refer to the attached PTO Form 892 and/or submitted IDSes to resolve any possible discrepancies in the listed reference numbers.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for domestic/foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119/120 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted 2/14//2025 and 12/10/2025 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8-14, 16-18, and 20 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. Keep in mind, that this is allowability over the prior art. The claims are still subject to a double patenting rejection that needs to be resolved before the claims can be allowed.
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 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. All obviousness rationales stated below are rationales that would have been obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date of the application.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over “Personal Emergency Triggering, Notification And Communication For Smartwatches” by Cohen, US2018/0176362A1 (“Cohen”) in view of System, Method, And Apparatus For Common Contact Management by Richardson US11,762,843 (“Richardson”).
With respect to Claims 1, 15, and 19, while Cohen discloses a wearable device (And related method and non-transitory medium) comprising:
at least one communication circuit (Cohen at ¶20 where there is a telephone messaging module that makes calls) ;
memory including one or more storage media, storing one or more computer programs (Shavini at ¶4 where the memory stores instructions that cause the processor to perform functions);
at least one sensor (Cohen at ¶36 where the smartwatch has a sensor); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the at least one communication circuit, the memory, and the at least one sensor (Cohen at ¶22 where there is a processor that interfaces with the components.),
wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the wearable device to:
identify, using the at least one sensor, that a user wearing the wearable device is in a designated state (Cohen at ¶36 and Figure 4. The sensor determines that the smartwatch has been removed which is a triggering event.),
in response to identifying that the user is in the designated state, identify a first contact list among contacts stored in the memory (Cohen at ¶36 where the user’s emergency contacts are identified through processes in the emergency contact module),
transmit, using the at least one communication circuit, a first signal for an outgoing call to a second external electronic device corresponding to a third contact among a plurality of contacts included in the first contact list and the second contact list, to the second external electronic device (Shavini at ¶¶36, 37 at Figure 1 and paragraph 18 where up to at least 3 contacts are notified),
Cohen does not explicitly state that which is known in the art as taught by Richardson. Richardson discloses: and identify, using the at least one communication circuit a second contact list obtained from a first external electronic device connected to the wearable device, (Richardson at 2:38-3:18 where the system has an initiating device connected to a server. The server maintains its own contact list.)
Reasons to Combine/Modify: Cohen and Richardson are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are in the same field of endeavor, dialing emergency contacts upon the occurrence of a triggering event. Richardson states that there is often a need to look at a second contacts list beyond that of the initial device, as emergency contact information may not be up to date (See Richardson at 1:52-2:17) Even those below one of ordinary skill in the art know that in an emergency it’s important to have the right numbers to be able to reach the right people.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Cohen with Richardson for the reasons described above to be able to make sure contact information is accurate and thorough.
Neither Cohen nor Richardson explicitly states that which is known in the art, specifically: and transmit, using the at least one communication circuit, a second signal causing the first external electronic device to transmit a third signal for an outgoing call to a third external electronic device corresponding to a fourth contact among the plurality of contacts, to the first external electronic device.
However, that limitation would be considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. If the system is going to call three people, calling a fourth, is obvious. It’s just a change in the scale of the response. Applicant’s specification does not disclose any criticality for a range of 3 callers, versus 4, 5, or any other greater number. This is considered per se obvious per MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). Therefore, this change would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Richardson and further in view of “System and Application to Alert a Third Party During an Emergency” by Knight and Mbenka US2021/0400457A1 (“Knight”).
With respect to Claim 5, While Cohen in view of Ricahrdson discloses the wearable device of claim 1, Neither Cohen nor Richardson explicitly states that which is known in the art, specifically: wherein the second contact list is identified based on priorities of contacts stored in the first external electronic device, among the contacts stored in the first external electronic device (Knight at ¶23 where the contacts are priority ranked).
Reasons to Combine/Modify: Cohen, Richardson, and Knight are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are in the same field of endeavor, dialing emergency contacts upon the occurrence of a triggering event. Knight at ¶111 provides a teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation for this. Ranking allows a highest priority contact to be notified first. In the case of an emergency many people want their immediate family and/or most reliable contact notified first to be able to reach the right people in the right order.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Knight in view Cohen with Richardson for the reasons described above.
With respect to Claim6, while Cohen in view of Richardson and further in view of Knight discloses the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the wearable device to:
identify values representing priorities of the plurality of contacts included in the first contact list and the second contact list, respectively, and
identify, based on the values representing the priorities of the plurality of contacts respectively, the third contact and the fourth contact (Knight at ¶¶111, 112).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Richardson and further in view of “Fall Detection-Based Help-Seeking Method and Electronic Device” by Jiang et al., US2022/0108595A1 (“Jiang”)
With respect to Claim 7, while Cohen in view of Richardson discloses the wearable device of claim 1, further comprising:
global positioning system (GPS) circuitry (Cohen at ¶¶17, 18,
and wherein the one or more computer programs further include computer- executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the wearable device to:
based on identifying that the user is in the emergency situation, identify that the user is in the designated state (Cohen at ¶23), and
based on identifying that the user is in the emergency situation, identify a location of the user using the GPS circuitry (Cohen at ¶24).
Neither Cohen nor Richardson explicitly states that which is known in the art, specifically:
wherein the at least one sensor comprises a gyroscope sensor and an acceleration sensor (Jiang at ¶¶ 117-118),
identify, using at least one of the gyroscope sensor and the acceleration sensor, that the user is in an emergency situation (Jiang at ¶¶ 119-120)
Reasons to Combine/Modify: Cohen, Richardson, and Jiang are analogous to the claimed invention in that they are in the same field of endeavor, dialing emergency contacts upon the occurrence of a triggering event. Jiang mentions a device that has accelerometers and fall detection, but never explicitly ties the two together. Jiang at ¶4 states that this is a feature in many smartwatches. Jiang at ¶22 states that a well monitored and analyzed accelerometer or gyroscopic sensor can lead to eliminating false positives for fall detection. Avoiding a false positive is inherently a good thing. This prevents unnecessary tying up of emergency resources, or false alarm calls being sent to contacts who might needlessly worry. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jiang with Cohen in view of Richardson for the reasons described above.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The documents below were considered.
“Wearable Earpiece Oxygen Monitor” by Shavini US2020/0390402A1 (“Shavini”). Similar to Cohen for what it discloses. The mapping of the reference to most of Claim 1 is below. Cohen was slightly better reference for its disclosure of more external contacts being notified.
PNG
media_image1.png
572
756
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shavini Figure 3
With respect to Claims 1, 15, and 19 Shavini discloses a wearable device comprising:
at least one communication circuit;
memory including one or more storage media, storing one or more computer programs (Shavini at ¶4 where the memory stores instructions that cause the processor to perform functions);
at least one sensor (¶5 where the device has multiple sensors); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the at least one communication circuit, the memory, and the at least one sensor (Shavini at ¶34 and Figure 3 element 320B composed of subcomponents photodetector, processor, memory and transceiver coupled together),
wherein the one or more computer programs include computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors individually or collectively, cause the wearable device to:
identify, using the at least one sensor, that a user wearing the wearable device is in a designated state (Shavini at ¶24 where the system detects that an oxygen level has hit a threshold and triggers an alert),
in response to identifying that the user is in the designated state, identify a first contact list among contacts stored in the memory and identify, using the at least one communication circuit(Shavini at ¶24 where the alert causes the system to contact multiple contact numbers), a second contact list obtained from a first external electronic device connected to the wearable device (NOT IN SHAVINI),
transmit, using the at least one communication circuit, a first signal for an outgoing call to a second external electronic device corresponding to a third contact among a plurality of contacts included in the first contact list and the second contact list, to the second external electronic device (Shavini at ¶18 “The one or more processes can include an emergency plan. The emergency plan can include, but is not limited to, one or more of: contacting emergency services (e.g., initiating a telephone call to 911), sending a short message service (SMS) message (i.e., a text message) alert to a pre-programmed phone number (e.g., to a mobile device of the user or other designated person), emitting a sound from a sound emitter of the wearable oxygen monitor (e.g., an electronic beep sound effect emitted via a speaker), a vibration generated by a haptic feedback element of the wearable oxygen monitor (e.g., a piezoelectric transducer), transmitting (e.g., via a transceiver onboard the wearable oxygen monitor) a signal to a mobile device to cause an alert such as a sound effect and/or a vibration, etc.”), and
transmit, using the at least one communication circuit, a second signal causing the first external electronic device to transmit a third signal for an outgoing call to a third external electronic device corresponding to a fourth contact among the plurality of contacts, to the first external electronic device (repetition of steps disclosed in Shavini.)
“Personal Emergency Response (PER) System” US8,747,336B2 which discloses a wearable device using an accelerometer to detect a fall.
LifeAlert Commerical from 1987. Video can be found at https://youtu.be/cfe8XzCa1aA?si=qTqKB-qTtP3jiPc7 This fall detection device that could wireless contact emergency services aired originally in 1987 and disclosed the underlying main device in Claims 1, 15, and 19. It became a part of popular American culture, specifically the character Mrs. Fletcher complaining “I’ve fallen and I can’t get up.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7494. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10a-6p.
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, Yuwen “Kevin” Pan at 571-272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA L SCHWARTZ/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights