DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
Claims 1-20 are currently pending 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 11 and 16 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the g’s" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the heart rate variability" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-13 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tunnell (US 2022/0101710).
For claim 1, Tunnell discloses a system for detecting falls [E.g. 0162: Use of the system of the present invention to predict a fall may occur or declare that a fall has occurred, is one simple example of the many types of physical or health related situations that may be predicted or confirmed according to the present invention. Clearly, when considered relative to health situations, it is far better to predict the occurrence of a debilitating event than to confirm that such an event has occurred; Abstract], comprising:
at least one accessory monitoring device [E.g. 0033: the event detection device 120 (see FIG. 1) comprises a height detection device disposed in a pendant, bracelet or other wearable item; 0017] comprising:
one or more physiological sensor configured to sense physiological data from a user [E.g. 0022: physiological (or biometric) parameters may include: heart rate, blood pressure, blood type, oxygen saturation, heart rhythms, body temperature…; 0060: to more accurately determine the fallen entity's condition, the event detection device 120 may include the necessary sensors to determine one or more of the following parameters: pulse rate, blood pressure, oxygen level, alcohol level, activity level, dizziness, steps taken during a time interval, behavioral changes, gait, scent, sweat, voice, blood chemistry art rhythms, EKG, cardiac and lung sounds, weight, body mass index, caloric intake, medications taken (time of administration, dosage), etc. These sensors can be activated concurrently or in a hierarchical fashion based on results obtained from other sensors];
an accelerometer and/or gyroscope [E.g. 0036: a motion and/or gyro sensor, may detect some movement and/or movement direction that may indicate a fall is about to take place, 0084, 0006];
one or more cameras [E.g. 0061: conditions and parameters may also be captured by video and audio sensing and recording devices within the device 120, the device 150, or another component of the system, 0028]; and
a processor [Fig. 2: see CPU] configured to: receive data from the one or more physiological sensor, the accelerometer and/or gyroscope, and the one or more camera, analyze the data, and determine a fall status of the user [E.g. 0041-0045, 0016, 0057].
For claim 2, Tunnell discloses wherein the fall status comprises fallen and no-fall [E.g. 0054-0055, 0016].
For claim 3, Tunnell discloses wherein responsive to determining the fall status as fallen, the processor is further configured to automatically transmitting an alarm signal [E.g. 0035, 0057].
For claim 5, Tunnell discloses wherein user fall status further comprises fall predicted [E.g. 0160-0162, 0205, claim 1].
For claim 8, Tunnell discloses wherein analyzing the data comprises comparing g's detected by the accelerometer and/or gyroscope to an acceleration threshold, and comparing the physiological data to a related physiological threshold [E.g. 0045, 0196, 0200].
For claim 9, Tunnell discloses wherein the physiological data comprises heart rate of the user [E.g. 0022, 0052, 0070].
For claim 10, Tunnell discloses wherein the processor is further configured to use image data analysis for verification of fall status [E.g. 0060-0061, 0197].
For claim 12, Tunnell discloses wherein the at least one accessory monitoring device is configured to be worn by the user [E.g. 0033, 0037].
For claim 13, Tunnell discloses wherein at least one of the one or more camera is configured to be worn by the user [E.g. 0061, 0033].
For claim 17, Tunnell discloses wherein user fall status is discernable via an output device on the user [E.g. 0062,0076].
For claim 18, is interpreted and rejected as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 4, 6-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tunnell in view of Official Notice.
For claim 4, Tunnell fails to expressly disclose wherein, responsive to a determination of the fall status as fallen, the processor is configured to transmit image data from before, during, and/or after the fall.
However, examiner takes official notice that having responsive to a determination of the fall status as fallen, the processor is configured to transmit image data from before, during, and/or after the fall is well-known in the art of fall monitoring and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to accurately determine the fall status and its degree.
For claim 6, Tunnell fails to expressly disclose wherein the alarm signal includes image data.
However, examiner takes official notice that having an alarm signal including image data is well-known in the art of alarm signals and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to enable verifying the alarm signal.
For claim 7, Tunnell fails to expressly disclose responsive to alarm transmission and/or determination of fallen and/or fall possibility status, automatically providing communication connection between the user and an emergency provider.
However, examiner takes official notice that having responsive to alarm transmission and/or determination of fallen and/or fall possibility status, automatically providing communication connection between a user and an emergency provider is well-known in the art of communication and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to enable the user to easily communicate with an emergency provider so that any needed help can be provided timely.
For claim 16, Tunnell fails to expressly disclose wherein responsive to acceleration data indicating fallen status, the one or more camera is activated, the heart rate variability is checked, and/or visual image orientation data is checked.
However, examiner takes official notice that having responsive to acceleration data indicating fallen status, the one or more camera is activated, the heart rate variability is checked, and/or visual image orientation data is checked is well-known in the art of fall detection and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to enable verifying a user fall status.
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tunnell in view of Espina Perez et al. (Espina; US 2019/0167157).
For claim 11, Tunnell fails to expressly disclose wherein the processor is configured to analyze the data by using image data analysis configured for fall detection, and compare the physiological data to a related physiological threshold or comparing the g's to an acceleration threshold.
However, as shown by Espina, it was well known in the art of fall detection to include a processor configured to analyze data by using image data analysis configured for fall detection [E.g. 0007, 0011, 0040, 0005], and compare the physiological data to a related physiological threshold or comparing the g's to an acceleration threshold [E.g. 0021-0023, 0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of fall detection before the effective filling date of the claimed invention modify Tunnell with the teaching of Espina in order to improve the accuracy of fall detection by using multiple data and thereby improve the overall monitoring system, also it is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
12. Claims 14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tunnell.
For claim 14, although Tunnell fails to expressly disclose wherein at least one of the one or more camera is configured to be stationary or wall-mounted, Tunnell teaches one or more camera [E.g. see claim 1 analysis]. However, having the at least one of the one or more camera configured to be stationary or wall-mounted fails to yield unexpected results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tunnell to include at least one of the one or more camera configured to be stationary or wall-mounted in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Tunnell.
For claim 19, although Tunnell fails to expressly disclose wherein the device is configured to be mounted to a user's chest, Tunnel teaches the device can be clipped on a belt or worn on or as part of clothing, accessory and the like [E.g. 0038]. However, having the device configured to be mounted to a user's chest fails to yield unexpected results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tunnell to include the device configured to be mounted to a user's chest in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Tunnell.
For claim 20, although Tunnell fails to expressly disclose wherein at least the accelerometer and/or gyroscope and/or the one or more camera are configured to be mounted in a personal care item for the user, Tunnel teaches at least the accelerometer and/or gyroscope and/or the one or more camera are configured to be mounted in the wearable device [see claim 1 analysis]. However, having at least the accelerometer and/or gyroscope and/or the one or more camera configured to be mounted in a personal care item for the user fails to yield unexpected results; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tunnell to include at least the accelerometer and/or gyroscope and/or the one or more camera configured to be mounted in a personal care item for the user in order to satisfy system needs and/or environment requirement, also because such modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Tunnell.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claim 15 is 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.
Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED BARAKAT whose telephone number is (571)270-3696. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00PM.
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 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.
/MOHAMED BARAKAT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights