DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1-14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1, and similarly for claims 16 and 17, recites “an alert method for a remote communication terminal, the alert method being implemented by an alert communication device and comprising: establishing a communication session between said alert communication device and a remote communication terminal triggered by a detection of an alert situation; and, transmitting, via the established communication session, a generated message”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim precludes the recognizing, establishing, and transmitting from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, independent claim 1 and similarly for claims 16 and 17, recites “establishing a communication session between said alert communication device and a remote communication terminal triggered by a detection of an alert situation; and, transmitting, via the established communication session, a generated message”, which is merely just a concept can be performed in the human mind. Thus, all of the limitations can be performed mentally. As such, the claim is directed solely to perform mental processes that fall into the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas and is directed to a judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Courts consistently rule that "transmitting a message” is basic human activities and mental processes”. And voice synthesis is well known and conventional; it is considered the digital equivalent of someone reading a pre-written script over a phone. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-14 recites limitations adding specific information to the abstract idea. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tunnell et al. (US 20200146550 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Tunnell teaches an alert method for a remote communication terminal (Tunnell, Fig. 4, a first responder's personal device 440 and personal devices 441 of other friends, family, and healthcare providers), the alert method being implemented by an alert communication device (Tunnell, Fig. 1, Notifying device 150; Para. 71, The notifying device 150 can be located anywhere proximate and within communication range of the event detection device 120 (see FIG. 1), or can be incorporated into the event detection device 120 (not shown), or in yet other embodiments, be cloud based whereby a server or other notification device 150 has a communication path with the event detection device 120) and comprising: establishing a communication session between said alert communication device and a remote communication terminal triggered by a detection of an alert situation (Tunnell, Para. 64, After a fall or another emergency condition is determined and confirmed, the event detection device 120 issues an alert and the notifying device then issues the notification; Para. 84, The notifying device 150, through the communications interface 520, attempts to contact help responsive to the alert signal. The device 150 may make one or more attempts to locate a family member, crisis or call center, neighbor, front desk personnel, caretaker, central monitoring station, or the 911 emergency operator and the like); and, transmitting, via the established communication session, a generated message (Tunnell, Para. 32-35, the notifying device generates and transmits the notification signal 125; Para. 84, When contact is made, the notifying device 150 provides an indication of the problem (e.g., an LED, a message, a display, using recorded or synthesized speech, such as from a voice messages synthesizer shown in FIG. 3) or using another audio or digital message or signal).
In regard to claim 2, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1, wherein the establishment of the communication session is triggered by the detection of the alert situation based on data acquired from at least one sensor (Tunnell, Para. 92, A motion sensor such as but not limited to an accelerometer and/or gyro and/or combinations of motion sensors can also detect motion or activity of the wearer. The frequency at which the event detection device 120 measures the pressures to detect a fall is responsive to such activity. That is, whenever the motion sensor first detects motion after a quiet period, the device 120 is awakened and pressure readings are taken. The frequency at which additional pressure readings are taken is responsive to the activity of the wearer, as determined by the motion sensor. For example, the motion sensor can detect when the wearer is walking. Since walking increases the likelihood of a fall, the event detection device 120 can increase the frequency of height measurements during a walking episode).
In regard to claim 3, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1, wherein the message is generated based on the detected alert situation and on data acquired from at least one sensor (Tunnell, Para. 94, The severity level is determined by the event detection device 120, which recognizes either a verbal message of the wearer or metrics derived by sensors, apart from the sensors that determine a fall condition. A signal indicative of the severity level is sent to the notifying device 150, which in turn issues notifications responsive to the indicated severity level. The specific details of those notifications as related to the severity level include: the communications vehicle by which the notifications are sent, the parties to whom the notifications are sent, and an indication of the immediacy of the condition (e.g., need immediate help for a fall condition or can wait a few days for scheduling the doctor's appointment).
In regard to claim 4, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1, wherein the transmitted message is a voice message generated by voice synthesis based on data acquired from at least one sensor (Tunnell, Para. 84, When contact is made, the notifying device 150 provides an indication of the problem (e.g., an LED, a message, a display, using recorded or synthesized speech, such as from a voice messages synthesizer shown in FIG. 3) or using another audio or digital message or signal; Para. 94).
In regard to claim 5, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1,further comprising: acquiring data from at least one sensor (Tunnell, Para. 39, the event detection device 120 (see FIG. 1) comprises a height detection device disposed in a pendant, bracelet or other wearable item, the height detection sensor determines height information from any one or more of height-determining devices (sensors) either embedded in the height detection device or separate therefrom), the acquired data being at least one data among the following: data relating to a first individual (Tunnell, Para. 40-41, When the wearer falls, the event detection device 120 detects this height change. If the device 120 remains within the threshold range of the floor (e.g., 8 to 16 inches from the floor) for longer than a predetermined period of time (e.g., 15 seconds), the device 120 sends an alarm signal to the notifying device 150, which may be located elsewhere in the space occupied by the wearer (e.g., a residence, home, apartment, condominium, assisted living apartment, assisted living facility, nursing home, hospital room, and boathouse)); data relating to an environment; data relating to an environment of a first individual; data captured by at least one sensor connected to the alert communication device; data captured by at least one sensor of the alert communication device; sound data including at least one sound signal captured by at least one sensor connected to the alert communication device; sound data including at least one sound signal captured by at least one sensor of the alert communication device.
In regard to claim 6, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1, further comprising detecting the alert situation by analysis of data acquired from at least one sensor (Tunnell, Para. 50, Under certain circumstances, periodically (e.g., every 15 seconds) the sensor determines its height, i.e., an absolute altitude above sea level. Since the sensor is within the device 120, which is worn by the user, the altitude of the sensor is indicative of the altitude of the device 120 which is further indicative of the height of the wearer or user), the detecting triggering the establishment of the communication session if the alert situation is detected (Tunnell, Para. 51-52, this difference height value is compared with a threshold value to determine whether the wearer has fallen. A comparator, such as a logic circuit or a CPU and software, can perform this comparison operation. The alarm is issued to the notifying device 150 if the difference height value is within the threshold, as this indicates that the user has fallen).
In regard to claim 7, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1, wherein the detection of an alert situation is performed by analysis of sound data acquired from at least one sensor (Tunnell, Para. 55 and 58, when the event detection device 120 detects a ‘fallen’ condition, as a non-limiting example, an audio link is opened with the microphone/speaker within the event detection device 120. The audio link may be established automatically upon detection of a fall, triggered automatically, periodically, or in some embodiments, initiated by another responding device. In addition to activating the microphone/speaker, other components of the event detection device 120 can be activated for receiving or determining/sensing information that can be used to negate the fall determination).
In regard to claim 9, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining the remote communication terminal based on the detected alert situation (Tunnell, Para. 94 and 96, A signal indicative of the severity level is sent to the notifying device 150, which in turn issues notifications responsive to the indicated severity level. The specific details of those notifications as related to the severity level include: the communications vehicle by which the notifications are sent, the parties to whom the notifications are sent, and an indication of the immediacy of the condition (e.g., need immediate help for a fall condition or can wait a few days for scheduling the doctor's appointment)).
In regard to claim 10, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1, further comprising generating an alert message, called a "first message", based on at least one data among at least the following data: at least one data acquired from at least one sensor (Tunnell, Para. 94, The severity level is determined by the event detection device 120, which recognizes either a verbal message of the wearer or metrics derived by sensors, apart from the sensors that determine a fall condition. A signal indicative of the severity level is sent to the notifying device 150, which in turn issues notifications responsive to the indicated severity level. The specific details of those notifications as related to the severity level include: the communications vehicle by which the notifications are sent, the parties to whom the notifications are sent, and an indication of the immediacy of the condition (e.g., need immediate help for a fall condition or can wait a few days for scheduling the doctor's appointment); at least one data provided by analysis of data acquired from at least one sensor, the alert message being able to be vocally synthesized and transmitted, upon establishment of the communication session, in the form of a voice message via the established communication session (Tunnell, Para. 84, When contact is made, the notifying device 150 provides an indication of the problem (e.g., an LED, a message, a display, using recorded or synthesized speech, such as from a voice messages synthesizer shown in FIG. 3) or using another audio or digital message or signal).
In regard to claim 11, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1,further comprising activating an audio sensor, the audio sensor being an audio sensor among the following: an audio sensor of said alert communication device (Tunnell, Para. 55, when the event detection device 120 detects a ‘fallen’ condition, as a non-limiting example, an audio link is opened with the microphone/speaker within the event detection device 120. The audio link may be established automatically upon detection of a fall, triggered automatically, periodically, or in some embodiments, initiated by another responding device. In addition to activating the microphone/speaker, other components of the event detection device 120 can be activated for receiving or determining/sensing information that can be used to negate the fall determination); an audio sensor connected to the alert communication device; the activation being triggered based on at least one data among the following: at least one data acquired from at least one sensor; at least one data provided by analysis of data acquired from at least one sensor; at least one piece of information extracted, by voice recognition, from a second voice message coming from the remote communication terminal with which the communication session is established (Tunnell, Para. 56-58, Once the audio link is established, the entity can be queried, such as by asking, “Are you okay? Have you fallen?” Such messages may be generated from the voice message synthesizer and heard by the wearer by operation of the microphone/speaker in the event detection device 120. The audio query message may be in the form of synthesized speech phrase stored within the voice message synthesizer).
In regard to claim 12, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1, further comprising: a voice synthesis of a message comprising at least one piece of information among the following: at least one data acquired from at least one sensor; at least one data provided by analysis of data acquired from at least one sensor; at least one piece of information extracted, by voice recognition, from a voice signal coming from a device, the voice signal being one among the following: a second voice message coming from the remote communication terminal with which the communication session is established; a voice signal from a local audio sensor activated by the alert method; at least one alert message, called a "first message", generated based on one piece of information among the previous ones; at least one response message, called a "third message", generated based on one piece of information among the previous ones, the response message resulting from the second voice message coming from the remote communication terminal (Tunnell, Para. 84, When contact is made, the notifying device 150 provides an indication of the problem (e.g., an LED, a message, a display, using recorded or synthesized speech, such as from a voice messages synthesizer shown in FIG. 3) or using another audio or digital message or signal).
In regard to claim 13, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1, further comprising performing a voice recognition extracting information from a voice signal coming from a device, the voice signal being one among the following: a second voice message coming from the remote communication terminal with which the communication session is established; a voice signal from a local audio sensor activated by the alert method (Tunnell, Para. 55-58).
In regard to claim 14, Tunnell teaches the alert method according to claim 1, further comprising controlling an actuator by using a command generated based on at least one element among the following: an alert situation detected (Tunnell, Para. 55, when the event detection device 120 detects a ‘fallen’ condition, as a non-limiting example, an audio link is opened with the microphone/speaker within the event detection device 120. The audio link may be established automatically upon detection of a fall, triggered automatically, periodically, or in some embodiments, initiated by another responding device. In addition to activating the microphone/speaker, other components of the event detection device 120 can be activated for receiving or determining/sensing information that can be used to negate the fall determination); at least one data acquired from at least one sensor; at least one data provided by analysis of data acquired from at least one sensor; at least one piece of information extracted, by voice recognition, from a second voice message coming from one device among the following: the remote communication terminal with which the communication session is established; an audio sensor connected to the alert communication device and activated by the alert method.
In regard to claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
In regard to claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 as stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tunnell et al. (US 20200146550 A1) in view of Sholder (US 20130307685 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Tunnell does not specifically teach the alert method according to claim 1, further comprising calculating a value representative of a probability that an individual is unable to contact an emergency service, the establishment of a communication session being implemented in response to said value being greater than a threshold value.
However, Sholder teaches calculating a value representative of a probability that an individual is unable to contact an emergency service, the establishment of a communication session being implemented in response to said value being greater than a threshold value (Sholder, Para. 42, In the event horizontal motion is not already detected, the device continues to monitor whether the 30-second time period has elapsed (309F). If at 309F, the device detects that the 30-second time period has elapsed and no horizontal motion has been detected, it processes an automatic emergency fall alert 310, placing a call to the call service center and transmitting information relating to the alert thereto).
Tunnell and Sholder are analogous art because they both pertain to personal emergency response system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine that the user is unconscious and unable to contact an emergency service (as taught by Sholder) in order to generate an automatic emergency fall alert, placing a call to the call service center and transmitting information relating to the alert thereto.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARMIN AKHTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9365. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm EST.
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 W Goins can be reached on (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 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.
/SHARMIN AKHTER/
Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights