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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Non-Statutory 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 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,361,810 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are obvious modification of the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim
complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the mobile device comprises at least one of a smart phone or a tablet computer”. However, the parent claim 16 has already defines that the “mobile device comprises a watch”. The limitation of claim 17 improperly expands the scope of the “mobile device” instead of further limiting the subject matter of claim 16 from which it depends.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 13-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnee (Pub. No.: US 2023/0057497 A1) in view of Williams (Pub. No.: US 2012/0255978 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schnee teaches a method (Abstract, method and device for classifying an accident event involving a two-wheeled vehicle) comprising:
receiving, by one or more processors, sensor data obtained by one or more sensors carried by a user riding a bicycle (Fig. 2, and para [0026], “
The acceleration sensor required for this purpose can be securely mounted on the two-wheeled vehicle or can be part of an indicator and control device that a rider can fasten to the bicycle temporarily or carries with them for detecting the movement during travel. To detect these and other sensor variables, it is possible, for example, to use the sensors in a mobile terminal, such as a smartphone, or a human machine interface (HMI) which is used, for example, to control the drive of an electric vehicle.”. A mobile device 20 carried by the rider that receives acceleration data via its sensors);
determining, by the one or more processors and based on the sensor data, a configuration of the bicycle (para [0011], “In a development of the present invention, a mass-specific energy variable, which can likewise be used for the classification, is derived from the first and second integration variables. For this purpose, a shared tilt variable is additionally derived from the roll angle and the pitch angle and also incorporated in the classification. To identify a collision in this case, a check is carried out to determine the extent to which the energy variable exceeds an energy threshold value and the tilt variable exceeds a tilt threshold value. If the energy threshold value is exceeded first and then the tilt threshold values are exceeded, the method generates an item of information which states that a collision has occurred involving a suspected injury. If, however, the energy value and the tilt variable both remain below the corresponding threshold values, the method generates an item of information which merely represents the two-wheeled vehicle in particular having fallen over sideways, or even a bicycle that is still upright. A further tilt threshold value can be used to make a distinction from a side-on collision. Typical variables for an upright bicycle are in the range of the tilt variable of 0-45°.”. The mobile device classifies the bicycle is standing upright, fallen over, or has collided based on tilt angle and other sensor information);
selecting, by the one or more processors, a first set of rules from among the plurality of sets of rules for processing the sensor data, wherein the first set of rules is specific to the determined configuration of the bicycle (Fig. 3, shows a first set of rules for fallen over vehicle at steps 340-360, a second set of rules for collision at steps 370-390, and a third set of rules for non-collision and the vehicle is standing upright at steps 300-320.);
determining, by the one or more processors, at least one of a likelihood that the user has fallen or a likelihood that the user requires assistance based on the sensor data and the first set of rules (para [0031], “
In step 330, on the basis of the change in speed Δvx and Δvy, respectively, the spatial direction in which the main change to the speed has occurred is then identified. If it is identified that the change in speed has taken place substantially in the y direction, that the change in speed Δvy in the y direction has exceeded a threshold value SW.sub.y, or that the change is predominantly in the y direction, in particular by a multiple, it is identified that the two-wheeled vehicle has toppled over (sideways),”. The mobile device determines the likelihood of the user riding the vehicle has fallen sideway based on the acceleration/speed data in the x-direction and the tilt data in the y-direction according to the step 340 of the first set of rules.); and
generating, by the one or more processors, one or more notifications based on at least one of the likelihood that the user has fallen or the likelihood that the user requires assistance (Fig. 3 and para [0031], “in step 350, the rider can be informed or, in general, an item of information can be generated to the effect that the two-wheeled vehicle has fallen over.”).
Schnee fails to teach the smartphone is worn by the rider.
However, in the same field of mobile devices, Williams teaches a phone holder that allows a user to wear a smartphone on the wrist (see Fig. 1 and abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schnee’s rider to carry the smartphone on the wrist of the rider as taught by Williams to improve mobility.
Regarding claim 2, Schnee in the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the sensor data comprises at least one of acceleration data or orientation data (Fig. 3, acceleration values).
Regarding claim 3, Schnee in the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the configuration to the bicycle comprises determining a handlebar configuration to the bicycle (para [0011], “In a development of the present invention, a mass-specific energy variable, which can likewise be used for the classification, is derived from the first and second integration variables. For this purpose, a shared tilt variable is additionally derived from the roll angle and the pitch angle and also incorporated in the classification. To identify a collision in this case, a check is carried out to determine the extent to which the energy variable exceeds an energy threshold value and the tilt variable exceeds a tilt threshold value. If the energy threshold value is exceeded first and then the tilt threshold values are exceeded, the method generates an item of information which states that a collision has occurred involving a suspected injury. If, however, the energy value and the tilt variable both remain below the corresponding threshold values, the method generates an item of information which merely represents the two-wheeled vehicle in particular having fallen over sideways, or even a bicycle that is still upright. A further tilt threshold value can be used to make a distinction from a side-on collision. Typical variables for an upright bicycle are in the range of the tilt variable of 0-45°.”. The handlebar has an orientation that corresponds to the orientation of the bicycle and the hands holding the handlebar. For instance, the handlebar is in the upright position while the bicycle is standing upright, e.g., tilt is at 0 degree, based on the sensor worn on the wrist of the rider holding onto the handlebar.).
Regarding claim 4, Schnee in the combination teaches the method of claim 3, wherein determining the handlebar configuration to the bicycle comprises determining that the handlebar configuration of the bicycle is one of:
a first handlebar configuration having a first orientation (para [0011], the handlebar has a first orientation while the bicycle is standing upright, e.g., tilt is at 0 degree, based on the sensor worn on the wrist of the rider holding onto the handlebar.), or
a second handlebar configuration having a second orientation different than the first orientation (para [0011], the handlebar has a second orientation after the bicycle has fallen sideway (e.g., tilt is more than 45 deg) based on the sensor worn on the wrist of the rider holding onto the handlebar).
Regarding claim 5, Schnee in the combination teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the first orientation is horizontal (Para [0011], the bicycle tilted at 0 degree indicates the handlebar is horizontal.).
Regarding claim 8, Schnee in the combination teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the second orientation is vertical (Para [0011], the bicycle tilted at more than 45 degrees indicates the handlebar is vertical.).
Regarding claim 13, Schnee in the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein generating the one or more notifications comprises:
transmitting a first notification to a communications device remote from the user, the first notification comprising an indication that the user has fallen (Fig. 3, step 350 and para [0034], “A mobile terminal carried with the rider can thus be used to call for assistance or also just to inform a predefined person, using wireless technology.”. The mobile device generates an item of information at step 350 that is similar to the item of information at step 380 to call for assistance).
Regarding claim 14, Schnee in the combination teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the communications device is an emergency response system (Fig. 3, step 350, The mobile device calls for emergency assistance.).
Regarding claim 15, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the one or more processors and the one or more sensors are provided on a mobile device configured to be worn by the user (Schnee’s smartphone includes sensors for fall detection is modified with Williams’s phone holder that allows the rider to wear the smartphone on the wrist.).
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the method of claim 1, where at least some of the one or more sensors are worn on a wrist of the user (Schnee’s smartphone includes sensors for fall detection is modified with Williams’s phone holder that allows the rider to wear the smartphone on the wrist.).
Regarding claim 19, recites a system that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 20, recites a CRM that performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, the claim is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schnee (Pub. No.: US 2023/0057497 A1) in view of Williams (Pub. No.: US 2012/0255978 A1) as applied to claim 15 and further in view of Khaligh (Pub. No.: US 2018/0197401 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Schnee in the combination teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the mobile device comprises a smartphone instead of a watch.
However, in the same field of fall detection, Khaligh teaches the rider wears a smartwatch or carries a smartphone. See para [0026], “Generally, the wireless device 200 may be a smartphone, tablet, personal digital assistant, cell phone, a wearable device (e.g., a smart watch, glasses, headset, etc.), or the like that performs various types of functions typical in such devices in addition to the unexpected event detection functions discussed below, although in some embodiments, the wireless device 200 may be a dedicated unexpected event detection device and/or otherwise associated with the electric bicycle 110.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schnee’s smartphone with a smartwatch as taught by Khaligh to improve mobility.
Regarding claim 17, Schnee in the combination teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the mobile device comprises at least one of a smart phone (para [0026], smartphone) or a tablet computer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHEN Y WU whose telephone number is (571)272-5711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10AM-6PM, 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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/ZHEN Y WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights