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(s) Status
Claim 1 has been canceled. Claim 2-21 have been added. Claims 2-21 are currently pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 & 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11436907 in view of Campman (US 20080061962 A1, IDS) in view of Amis (US 20120319840 A1, IDS) and Cristoforo (US 20120310547 A1). The patent’s inventive scope using a mobile device comprising a display, communication circuitry, processor, memory and an acceleration sensor (corresponding to a impact sensor), wherein the mobile device is configured to detect acceleration data to determine impact conditions which causes the mobile device to transmit messages to an external device for designating an emergency service for the detected impact conditions. While, the patent does not disclose that the emergency service involves a SOS dispatch. Campman discloses, in ¶¶23, 55-61 with reference to Fig. 1, the concept of providing location tracking with corresponding motion triggering circuitry to enable emergency distress (corresponding to SOS) call transmission to a monitoring base unit. Amis discloses, in ¶¶21-25 with reference to Fig. 1, the concept of providing distress signals transmitted from a monitoring device to emergency call centers and first responders. Cristoforo discloses, in ¶27, the concept of enabling a location tracking service provider with the ability to provide dispatching of emergency personnel to assist with distress call conditions. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of enabling a location tracking service provider with the ability to provide dispatching of emergency personnel to assist with distress call conditions, with the motivation to enhance the safety response features of the system.
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) 2-3, 8-11 & 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campman in view of Amis and Cristoforo. 1) Regarding claims 2 and 16, Campman discloses an electronic device (Figs. 1 & 4: personal transceiver device 114) comprising: an impact detector (Campman: ¶61 with regard to the lack-of-motion sensor including an accelerometer, which are known to produce acceleration values indicative of impact, as indicated by Amis, ¶¶10, 32-34, claim 1. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate detecting impact condition indicative of motion, with the motivation to enhance motion evaluating features of the system); a display (Campman: ¶61; Fig. 4: display 440); communication circuitry (Campman: ¶61; Fig. 4: transceiver 448); and a processor (Campman: Fig. 4: microprocessor 446), wherein the processor is configured to: receive an impact data from the impact detector (Campman: ¶61; Amis: ¶32-34); and based on the impact data indicating an impact with a level exceeding a threshold level, transmit, via the communication circuitry, location information to an external electronic device (Campman: ¶61; Amis: ¶32-34). As per the limitation wherein the external electronic device is configured to receive the location information for calling SOS dispatch. Campman discloses, in ¶¶23, 55-61 with reference to Fig. 1, the concept of providing location tracking with corresponding motion triggering circuitry to enable emergency distress (corresponding to SOS) call transmission to a monitoring base unit. Amis discloses, in ¶¶21-25 with reference to Fig. 1, the concept of providing distress signals transmitted from a monitoring device to emergency call centers and first responders. Cristoforo discloses, in ¶27, the concept of enabling a location tracking service provider with the ability to provide dispatching of emergency personnel to assist with distress call conditions. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of enabling a location tracking service provider with the ability to provide dispatching of emergency personnel to assist with distress call conditions, with the motivation to enhance the safety response features of the system. 2) Regarding claim 9, Campman, Amis and Cristoforo with the same motivation to combine as presented in the rejection of claims 2 and 16, teach a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions (Amis discloses the use of a memory device, see ¶60. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a memory device to enable to the microprocessor of Campman to be programmed as intended, with the motivation to enhance processing features of the system), wherein the instructions, when executed by an electronic device including an impact detector (see analysis of the rejection of claims 2 and 16), a display (see analysis of the rejection of claims 2 and 16), and communication circuitry (see analysis of the rejection of claims 2 and 16), cause the electronic device to: receive an impact data from the impact detector (see analysis of the rejection of claims 2 and 16); and based on the impact data indicating an impact with a level exceeding a threshold level, transmit, via the communication circuitry, location information to an external electronic device (see analysis of the rejection of claims 2 and 16), wherein the external electronic device is configured to receive the location information for calling SOS dispatch (see analysis of the rejection of claims 2 and 16). 3) Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, wherein the processor is configured to: transmit, via the communication circuitry, a message for notifying emergency situation (Campman: ¶¶, 23, 55-61; Fig. 1; Amis: abstract; ¶¶10-11, 21-26). 4) Regarding claims 8 and 15, wherein the processor is configured to: display, based on the impact data indicating the impact with the level exceeding the threshold level, a personal information of a user of the electronic device, via the display (Amis: ¶41).
Claim(s) 4, 11 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campman in view of Amis and Cristoforo, and in further view of Kwon (US 20080194238 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, wherein the processor is configured to: transmit the message to a user registered as a guardian of a user of the electronic device. Amis discloses, in ¶26 with reference to Fig. 1, the concept of providing distress condition notifications to friends and family via a communication network which suggest that the friends and family (guardian/protector entity) have a device to enable reception of the notification. Kwon discloses, in ¶71 with reference to Figs. 1, 9-13, the concept of providing emergency messages to devices of registered protectors (corresponding to a guardian) of a monitored user. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of providing emergency messages to devices of registered protectors of a monitored user, with the motivation to enhance the notification features of the system.
Claim(s) 5-6, 12-13 & 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campman in view of Amis and Cristoforo, and in further view of Gray (US 20090233573 A1, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, wherein the location information is used to display, on a display of the external electronic device, a location of the electronic device since the time of the impact. Gray discloses, in claim 1, the concept of transmitting distress signals that enables a receiving device to display the current location of a user of the transmitting device. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of transmitting distress signals that enables a receiving device to display the current location of a user of the transmitting device, with the motivation to enhance the location monitoring features of the system. 2) Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, wherein the location information is used to obtain a route in which a location of the external electronic device is a departure location, and the location of the electronic device is a destination location (Gray discloses, in ¶¶9-10, claims 1 & 6, providing dispatch service concerning the location of a transmitting device).
Claim(s) 7, 14 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campman in view of Amis and Cristoforo, and in further view of Trela et al. (“Trela”, US 7257420 B2, IDS). 1) Regarding claims 7, 14 and 21, wherein the processor is configured to: display, on the display of the electronic device, a screen for providing an outgoing call for the SOS dispatch. Trela discloses, in ¶44, the concept of displaying an active rescue operation in real-time. At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the concept of displaying an active rescue operation in real-time, with the motivation to enhance the rescue operation and display features of the system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20050073408 A1, portable device providing SOS messaging to an external device/system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHICO A FOXX whose telephone number is (571)272-5530. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 6:00 M-F.
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.
CHICO A. FOXX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/CHICO A FOXX/Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights