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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/12/2025. These drawings are accepted for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, the instances of and/or in the claims create issues with interpretation of the scope of the claims. As examples, it is unclear if a motion detector is also a presence detector as detection of motion would indicate “presence” of something. It is also unclear if the limitation is actually one element or multiple elements.
Likewise, it is unclear how the fall detector determines a fall risk based on “dwell time”, as the dwell time is undefined. Furthermore, it is unclear how the dwell time would be converted into “fall risk” as a “high or low” quantity.
Additionally, the fall detector is further disclosed as detecting a dwell time a person is sitting on a “seating” (sic, needs to be corrected) or lying down “by the fall detector”, as it appears these conditions may or may not be the same “dwell time” mentioned above (and if so “a dwell time” lacks antecedent basis). Finally, it is unclear if the RF sensing signal itself indicates the “fall detection” recited, or if it is actually the “detection of the RF signal from the network devices after a propagation through at least a portion of the sensing area” as both are recited (as recited, the “RF sensing signal” is simply indicative of “the RF signal” which includes both the transmission and the more-appropriate detection signal after propagation). “The RF signal” should be clarified as being the signal after propagation if that is the intended signal portion/instance.
Upon amendment to definite subject matter, please keep in mind that the considerations under 112(a) regarding enablement and written description still apply.
In claim 2, it is unclear how the step of determining what “can be performed” is ascertained, and it is additionally unclear how a vital sign detection is determined or performed. Again, the presence of “and/or” makes it unclear exactly what the network devices are actually configured to “receive” in terms of signal data.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what type of “comparison” for the motion is being recited, in terms of the data points or signal analysis. The fall detector was previously recited as being configured “to detect a position or presence of the person in the sensing area based on sensing signals from at least one motion and/or presence detector”, but is not recited as being configured to detect “a motion” as the motion and/or presence detector is recited as performing that function (and claim 4 does not depend from claim 3, which includes the limitation of the fall detector to control RF-based sensing in the sensing area). The fall detector appears to receive signal data from the “motion and/or presence” detector, rather than perform the step of “detection” itself. Furthermore, it is unclear how the comparison is performed (to a standardized data set, RF-data, motion data, etc).
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear what referenced parameters are required for performing the functions of claim 1, as none of the listed elements, save the network devices, are even recited in claim 1 (or the first operating mode). Regarding claim 6, “lighting functionality” is unclear.
Regarding claim 7, it is unclear if the limitation is simply to a light unit, or to the more-specific list of items. You cannot claim both.
Regarding claim 8, it is understood that the claim depends from claim 2, but the recitation of the vital sign data from claim 2 is still unclear. Additionally, it is unclear how the “sound generator/sensor” pairing provides motion/presence/vital sign detection.
Regarding claim 12, it is unclear what is meant by “causing the fall detection system”, as claim 1 is not simply a program product.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coffey et al (US 2023/0000396 (EP20781186.0A, Published 3/18/2021 as WO2021050966A1)).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11, and 12, Coffey et al discloses and teaches a fall detection system including at least a presence or motion detection element, configured to operate with controllable parameters (0081-0083), a fall detector element configured to process data from a sensing area and provide a determination of both a presence/motion and a risk of fall for data in a area, wherein the fall detector uses the time a detected individual has been in a location, sound, RF-based sensing, position data, and combinations thereof to generate an indicator or other risk of a fall (having occurred or about to occur, 0081-0085).
Coffey et al further discloses multiple RF-based sensor elements for sensing data from a particular area, and providing data to the fall detector so that the fall detector can determine a time a person has been sitting or lying down and providing an alert or change of parameters to detect a fall of a person based on RF data in the detection area (0029 (subset activations), 0056, 0061 for subset parameters), 0033-0036, 0041, 0115, Abs). The sensors of Coffey et al are configured to receive signals and provide data based on motion/presence or vital signs of a patient in the area of interrogation (0093, 0115, 0081-0082, 0085-0100, 0093/0115 vitals).
Regarding claims 3-7, the fall detector of Coffey et al discloses and teaches the control of the network devices for RF-based sensing (0033, 0041-0045, 0115), the detection of sitting, standing, lying down, transitions therebetween, and abnormalities thereof, as well as the activation of a sound system for communication and detection of noises (0034, 0053, 0072, 0085, 0087 (sound)). Finally, the lighting of a light device is controlled by the system as well (Light device, 0050).
Regarding claims 8 and 10, Coffey et al discloses and teaches a sound generator and listening device, utilized to provide presence detection (0039-0040, 0115), as well as the use of a radar/ToF sensor for detection (0046, 0078, 0115).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes references to Zhang, Lin, and ‘143CN, cited on reference cited sheet. All of these references include fall detection, control systems for patient monitoring and automated feedback control in the RF spectrum.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M. LAMPRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-3250. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/JOEL LAMPRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798