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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Priority
The Applicants’ claim for priority based upon U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/537,633 filed on July 27, 2017 is duly noted by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 12, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to due to a punctuation error. The claim ends with a comma instead of a period. Corrections are required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “analysis component” in claims 1, 10, 15, 16, and 18, “location-determining component” in claim 6, “alerting component” in claim 10, “query-issuing component” in claim 12, and “confirming component” in claim 17. Support for the aforementioned terms are found in paragraphs 0045, 0156, 0017, 0049, and 0058.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 in view of Grabiner et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0101770].
With regard to claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,354456 meets all of the limitations of the claim except for an analysis component for determining statistical values based on the prior sensed parameter values and for analyzing the current sensed parameter values relative to the statistical values and for determining whether the monitored person may fall or has fallen based thereon. In the field of monitoring systems, Grabiner et al. teaches:
an analysis component for determining statistical values based on the prior sensed parameter values and for analyzing the current sensed parameter values relative to the statistical values and for determining whether the monitored person may fall or has fallen based thereon [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 and Grabiner et al. to create a patient monitoring system wherein the system is able to predict a fall event before it occurs based upon measured patient data and determine if the monitored person has fallen based upon the measured data wherein the motivation to combine is to create a method and system for predicting an event (U.S. Patent 12,354,456, column 1, lines 23-26).
With regard to claim 2, claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 3, claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 4, claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 5, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 6, claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 7, claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 8, claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 9, claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 10, claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 11, claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 12, claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 13, claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 14, claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 15, claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 16, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 17, claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 18, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim except a plurality of sensors each for producing a sensed parameter value representative of a current condition of the monitored person, an analysis component for analyzing a plurality of sensed parameter values for use in determining whether the monitored person has fallen, the analysis component for providing a tentative fall determination responsive to one of the plurality of sensors producing a sensed parameter value indicative of a fall, and the analysis component providing a final fault determination, responsive to at least two of the plurality of sensors producing a parameter value indicative of a fall, and the system further comprising an alert issuing component for issuing an alert responsive to the final fault determination. In the field of monitoring systems, Grabiner et al. teaches:
a system for determining that a monitored person has fallen, the system comprising a plurality of sensors each for producing a sensed parameter value representative of a current condition of the monitored person [kinematic sensors used for measuring one or more of a displacement, a velocity, an acceleration, or a jerk (paragraph 0019 and figure 1, item 18) where fall event kinematic information is analyzed to predict (within a few hundred milliseconds) whether a fall event is imminent (paragraph 0038 and figure 4, item 158) where the information is sampled prior to a fall event]
an analysis component for analyzing a plurality of sensed parameter values for use in determining whether the monitored person has fallen [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
the analysis component for providing a tentative fall determination responsive to one of the plurality of sensors producing a sensed parameter value indicative of a fall, and the analysis component providing a final fault determination responsive to at least two of the plurality of sensors producing a parameter value indicative of a fall [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
the system further comprising an alert issuing component for issuing an alert responsive to the final fault determination [an alarm transmission module generating and transmitting one or more fall event signals indicating that a fall event has been detected (paragraph 0024)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 and Grabiner et al. to create a patient monitoring system wherein the system is able to predict a fall event before it occurs based upon measured patient data and determine if the monitored person has fallen based upon the measured data wherein the motivation to combine is to create a method and system for predicting an event (U.S. Patent 12,354,456, column 1, lines 23-26).
With regard to claim 19, claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 20, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 meets all of the limitations of the claim except A method for determining that a monitored person has fallen, the method comprising receiving prior sensed parameter values taken during a prior time interval and that are indicative of a prior condition of the monitored person, receiving current sensed parameter values that are indicative of a current condition of the monitored person, determining statistical values based on the prior sensed parameter values; analyzing the current sensed parameter values relative to the statistical values, and determining whether the monitored person has fallen based on an analysis of the current sensed parameter values relative to the statistical values. In the field of monitoring systems, Grabiner et al. teaches:
a method for determining that a monitored person has fallen, the method comprising receiving prior sensed parameter values taken during a prior time interval and that are indicative of a prior condition of the monitored person [kinematic sensors used for measuring one or more of a displacement, a velocity, an acceleration, or a jerk (paragraph 0019 and figure 1, item 18) where fall event kinematic information is analyzed to predict (within a few hundred milliseconds) whether a fall event is imminent (paragraph 0038 and figure 4, item 158) where the information is sampled prior to a fall event]
receiving current sensed parameter values that are indicative of a current condition of the monitored person [kinematic sensors used for measuring one or more of a displacement, a velocity, an acceleration, or a jerk (paragraph 0019 and figure 1, item 18) where fall event kinematic information is analyzed to predict (within a few hundred milliseconds) whether a fall event is imminent (paragraph 0038 and figure 4, item 158)]
determining statistical values based on the prior sensed parameter values; analyzing the current sensed parameter values relative to the statistical values [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
determining whether the monitored person has fallen based on an analysis of the current sensed parameter values relative to the statistical values [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of U.S. Patent No. 12,354,456 and Grabiner et al. to create a patient monitoring system wherein the system is able to predict a fall event before it occurs based upon measured patient data and determine if the monitored person has fallen based upon the measured data wherein the motivation to combine is to create a method and system for predicting an event (U.S. Patent 12,354,456, column 1, lines 23-26).
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grabiner et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0101770].
With regard to claim 1, Grabiner et al. meets the limitations of:
a system for determining that a monitored person has fallen, the system comprising sensors each for producing prior sensed parameter values during a prior time interval that are indicative of a prior condition of the monitored person, and for producing current sensed parameter values during a current time interval that are indicative of a current condition of the monitored person [kinematic sensors used for measuring one or more of a displacement, a velocity, an acceleration, or a jerk (paragraph 0019 and figure 1, item 18) where fall event kinematic information is analyzed to predict (within a few hundred milliseconds) whether a fall event is imminent (paragraph 0038 and figure 4, item 158) where the information is sampled prior to a fall event]
an analysis component for determining statistical values based on the prior sensed parameter values and for analyzing the current sensed parameter values relative to the statistical values and for determining whether the monitored person may fall or has fallen based thereon [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
With regard to claim 2, Grabiner et al. meets the limitations of:
one of the sensors indicates motion or movement of the monitored person such that in response to motion or movement one or more of other sensors are activated [the controller powers up the kinematic sensors that measure fall event kinematic information if the fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
With regard to claim 3, Grabiner et al. meets the limitation of:
the one of the sensors indicating motion or movement comprises an accelerometer or a gyroscope [a three-axis accelerometer used for measuring fall event kinematic information (paragraph 0041)]
With regard to claim 4, Grabiner et al. meets the limitation of:
the one or more of the other sensors comprises a heart rate sensor, a heart rate variability sensor, a blood pressure sensor, a sensor for determining a height above a reference level, a position sensor, a gesture sensor, an atmospheric pressure sensor, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, a ball switch, a tilt switch, a pulse sensor, a pulse oximeter sensor a brain wave sensor, an emotional sensor, or a heartbeat sensor [a fall detection device being a gyroscope (paragraph 0019)]
With regard to claim 7, Grabiner et al. meets the limitation of:
at least one of the sensors is activated periodically, at predetermined times, or at a frequency or rate determined by a prior sensed parameter value [a fall threshold being satisfied which governs the activation of monitoring sensors (paragraphs 0040 and 0041)]
With regard to claim 9, Grabiner et al. meets the limitation of:
one of the sensors for sensing motion, movement, a gesture, position, orientation, shock, elevation, height relative to a reference height, immobility, heart rate, pulse, oxygen level a brain wave state, emotional state, or blood pressure of the monitored person [an accelerometer used for sensing motion (paragraph 0006)]
With regard to claim 10, Grabiner et al. meets the limitation of:
an alerting component for issuing an alert responsive to the analysis component determining that the monitored person has fallen [an alarm transmission module generating and transmitting one or more fall event signals indicating that a fall event has been detected (paragraph 0024)]
With regard to claim 15, Grabiner et al. meets the limitation of:
certain prior sensed parameter values preceded a fall by the monitored person, the analysis component for determining a differential between the current sensed parameter values and the prior sensed parameter values that preceded the fall, and for determining that the monitored person has fallen when the differential is below a threshold [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1) thereby inferring the comparison of previous collected data to recently collected data. The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
With regard to claim 16, Grabiner et al. meets the limitation of:
if the analysis component determines that n of sensors each produces a current sensed parameter value indicating that the monitored person has fallen when compared with the statistical values based on the prior parameter values of the n sensors, then the analysis component determines that the monitored person has fallen [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1) thereby inferring the comparison of previous collected data to recently collected data. The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
With regard to claim 18, Grabiner et al. meets the limitation of:
a system for determining that a monitored person has fallen, the system comprising a plurality of sensors each for producing a sensed parameter value representative of a current condition of the monitored person [kinematic sensors used for measuring one or more of a displacement, a velocity, an acceleration, or a jerk (paragraph 0019 and figure 1, item 18) where fall event kinematic information is analyzed to predict (within a few hundred milliseconds) whether a fall event is imminent (paragraph 0038 and figure 4, item 158) where the information is sampled prior to a fall event]
an analysis component for analyzing a plurality of sensed parameter values for use in determining whether the monitored person has fallen [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
the analysis component for providing a tentative fall determination responsive to one of the plurality of sensors producing a sensed parameter value indicative of a fall, and the analysis component providing a final fault determination responsive to at least two of the plurality of sensors producing a parameter value indicative of a fall [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
the system further comprising an alert issuing component for issuing an alert responsive to the final fault determination [an alarm transmission module generating and transmitting one or more fall event signals indicating that a fall event has been detected (paragraph 0024)]
With regard to claim 20, Grabiner et al. meets the limitation of:
a method for determining that a monitored person has fallen, the method comprising receiving prior sensed parameter values taken during a prior time interval and that are indicative of a prior condition of the monitored person [kinematic sensors used for measuring one or more of a displacement, a velocity, an acceleration, or a jerk (paragraph 0019 and figure 1, item 18) where fall event kinematic information is analyzed to predict (within a few hundred milliseconds) whether a fall event is imminent (paragraph 0038 and figure 4, item 158) where the information is sampled prior to a fall event]
receiving current sensed parameter values that are indicative of a current condition of the monitored person [kinematic sensors used for measuring one or more of a displacement, a velocity, an acceleration, or a jerk (paragraph 0019 and figure 1, item 18) where fall event kinematic information is analyzed to predict (within a few hundred milliseconds) whether a fall event is imminent (paragraph 0038 and figure 4, item 158)]
determining statistical values based on the prior sensed parameter values; analyzing the current sensed parameter values relative to the statistical values [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
determining whether the monitored person has fallen based on an analysis of the current sensed parameter values relative to the statistical values [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
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.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 11, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabiner et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0101770] in view of Tran [U.S. Patent Publication 2013/0211291]
With regard to claim 6, Grabiner et al. fails to disclose of a location-determining component for determining a location of the monitored person, wherein an alert issued when the monitored person has fallen includes the location of the monitored person. In the field of patient monitoring devices, Tran teaches:
a location-determining component for determining a location of the monitored person, wherein an alert issued when the monitored person has fallen includes the location of the monitored person [a monitored person wearing a monitoring device where the monitoring device provides a location relating to where the monitored person has fell (paragraph 0023)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Grabiner et al. and Tran to create a wearable fall detection device used for detecting the falling of a monitored person wherein a location determining device sends the location of the monitored person when the person has fell in order to allow a caretaker to know where the person has fallen in order to provide assistance to the monitored person wherein the motivation to combine is to create a detection device that predicts and confirms a fall experienced by the wearer of the device (Grabiner et al., paragraph 0005).
With regard to claim 8, Grabiner et al. fails to disclose of one of the sensors comprises a video or an audio sensor. In the field of patient monitoring devices, Tran teaches:
one of the sensors comprises a video or an audio sensor [a monitored person wearing a monitoring device where the monitoring device has a microphone (paragraphs 0011 and 0170)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Grabiner et al. and Tran to create a wearable fall detection device used for detecting the falling of a monitored person wherein the detection device has a microphone used for enabling communication between a monitored person and a caretaker wherein the motivation to combine is to create a detection device that predicts and confirms a fall experienced by the wearer of the device (Grabiner et al., paragraph 0005).
With regard to claim 11, Grabiner et al. fails to disclose of the alert comprises vibratory motion, a shock, an audio sound, a flashing light, a text message, a voice call, or an email message. In the field of patient monitoring devices, Tran teaches:
the alert comprises vibratory motion, a shock, an audio sound, a flashing light, a text message, a voice call, or an email message [an alert being in the form of an email to indicate a detected medical condition of a monitored person (paragraph 0165)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Grabiner et al. and Tran to create a wearable fall detection device used for detecting the falling of a monitored person wherein the caretaker is emailed in response to a detected condition of the monitored person where the email acts as an alert to the caretaker wherein the motivation to combine is to create a detection device that predicts and confirms a fall experienced by the wearer of the device (Grabiner et al., paragraph 0005).
With regard to claim 12, Grabiner et al. fails to disclose of a query-issuing component for issuing a query to the monitored person prior to issuing the alert. In the field of patient monitoring devices, Tran teaches:
a query-issuing component for issuing a query to the monitored person prior to issuing the alert [the system asking a monitored person if he/she is experiencing any numbness in the body, arms, legs, or face (paragraph 0297) prior to sending an alert (paragraph 0010)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Grabiner et al. and Tran to create a wearable fall detection device used for detecting the falling of a monitored person wherein the monitored person is asked by the monitoring system if he or she is experiencing any type of detectable symptom prior to sending an alert to a caretaker in order to minimize unnecessary alerts wherein the motivation to combine is to create a detection device that predicts and confirms a fall experienced by the wearer of the device (Grabiner et al., paragraph 0005).
With regard to claim 17, Grabiner et al. fails to disclose of a confirming component for confirming that the monitored person has fallen based on a verbal exchange with the monitored person. In the field of patient monitoring devices, Tran teaches:
a confirming component for confirming that the monitored person has fallen based on a verbal exchange with the monitored person [a monitored person wearing a monitoring device where the monitoring device has a microphone where the patient can have a two-way conversation with a physician where the patient can mention having a fall while in conversation with the physician (paragraphs 0011 and 0170)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Grabiner et al. and Tran to create a wearable fall detection device used for detecting the falling of a monitored person wherein the detection device has a microphone used for enabling communication between a monitored person and a caretaker where the patient can mention having a fall while in conversation with the physician in order to convey that the monitored person has fell wherein the motivation to combine is to create a detection device that predicts and confirms a fall experienced by the wearer of the device (Grabiner et al., paragraph 0005).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabiner et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0101770] in view of Bornn et al. [U.S. Patent 5,564,429]
With regard to claim 13, Grabiner et al. fails to disclose of the monitored person can cancel the alert before or after the alert is issued. In the field of patient monitoring devices, Bornn et al. teaches:
the monitored person can cancel the alert before or after the alert is issued [a patient having the option of canceling an alert prior to it being issued (column 4, lines 15-25)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Grabiner et al. and Bornn et al. to create a wearable fall detection device used for detecting the falling of a monitored person wherein the monitored person has the option of canceling an alert before it being issued to a caretaker in order to eliminate unnecessary alarm notifications to the caretaker wherein the motivation to combine is to create a detection device that predicts and confirms a fall experienced by the wearer of the device (Grabiner et al., paragraph 0005).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabiner et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0101770] in view of Skelton et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0280500]
With regard to claim 14, Grabiner et al. meets the limitation of:
one of the sensed parameter values exceeds a threshold value, therefore indicating that the monitored person may fall [The controller samples the kinematic information from the sensors relevant to the fall event threshold and analyzes the kinematic information to determine whether the fall event threshold is satisfied and if the fall event threshold is not satisfied, the controller powers down the kinematic sensors so that they are in sleep mode until it is time for the next sample to be taken (paragraph 0040 and figure 1). The controller periodically samples the fall event kinematic information measured by the kinematic sensors at predetermined intervals to measure fall event kinematic information if a fall event threshold is satisfied (paragraph 0041)]
However, Grabiner et al. fails to disclose of responsive thereto another one of the sensors increases a rate at which sensed parameter values are measured. In the field of patient monitoring devices, Skelton et al. teaches:
responsive thereto another one of the sensors increases a rate at which sensed parameter values are measured [a sensor sampling rate increasing in order to sample more data associated with patient activity (paragraph 0187)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Grabiner et al. and Skelton et al. to create a wearable fall detection device used for detecting the falling of a monitored person wherein the sensors of the wearable monitor increase their sampling rates at which they acquire data, in response to thresholds being met or exceeded regarding the occurrence of a fall, in order to increase the chances of detecting a fall event more accurately and before a fall occurs wherein the motivation to combine is to create a detection device that predicts and confirms a fall experienced by the wearer of the device (Grabiner et al., paragraph 0005).
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabiner et al. [U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0101770] in view of Zamorano-Larrate [U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0154521]
With regard to claim 5, Grabiner et al. fails to disclose of the one of the sensors is always activated and activates the one or more of the other sensors when motion or movement of the monitored person is detected. In the field of emergency alert systems, Zamorano-Larrate teaches:
the one of the sensors is always activated and activates the one or more of the other sensors when motion or movement of the monitored person is detected [a wake event can be a personal emergency alert being triggered in response to, for example, a button press by a user, acceleration levels (i.e. those corresponding to a fall or an impact), impact, speed, orientation changes, vibration or other physical events based on the signals generated by the appropriate sensors installed in the wearable device (paragraph 0146) which then activates other electronic components (paragraph 0148)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Grabiner et al. and Zamorano-Larrate to create a wearable fall detection device used for detecting the falling of a monitored person wherein one patient related sensor in the wearable device is always active in order to monitor for any changes in the monitored person’s orientation and the sensor triggers the activation of other sensors in order to allow the other sensors to gather data and send it to a caregiver in order to allow the caregiver to determine what could have caused the change in orientation wherein the motivation to combine is to create a detection device that predicts and confirms a fall experienced by the wearer of the device (Grabiner et al., paragraph 0005).
With regard to claim 19, Grabiner et al. fails to disclose of a first subset of the plurality of sensors are continuously activated and a second subset of the plurality of sensors are activated responsive to a sensed parameter value from the first subset. In the field of emergency alert systems, Zamorano-Larrate teaches:
a first subset of the plurality of sensors are continuously activated and a second subset of the plurality of sensors are activated responsive to a sensed parameter value from the first subset [a wake event can be a personal emergency alert being triggered in response to, for example, a button press by a user, acceleration levels (i.e. those corresponding to a fall or an impact), impact, speed, orientation changes, vibration or other physical events based on the signals generated by the appropriate sensors installed in the wearable device (paragraph 0146) which then activates other electronic components (paragraph 0148)]
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Grabiner et al. and Zamorano-Larrate to create a wearable fall detection device used for detecting the falling of a monitored person wherein one patient related sensor in the wearable device is always active in order to monitor for any changes in the monitored person’s orientation and the sensor triggers the activation of other sensors in order to allow the other sensors to gather data and send it to a caregiver in order to allow the caregiver to determine what could have caused the change in orientation wherein the motivation to combine is to create a detection device that predicts and confirms a fall experienced by the wearer of the device (Grabiner et al., paragraph 0005).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication 2008/0186189 to Azzaro et al. discloses a system and method for predicting fall risk for a resident.
U.S. Patent Publication 2009/0048540 to Otto et al. discloses a wearable health monitoring device and methods for fall detection.
U.S. Patent 8,206,325 to Najafi et al. discloses an ambulatory system for measuring and monitoring physical activity and the risk of falling.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMESHANAND MAHASE whose telephone number is (571) 270-7223. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8:00AM - 5:00PM. 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.
/PAMESHANAND MAHASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2689
/DAVETTA W GOINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights