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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on September 22, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1 and 6 have been amended, claim(s) 2-3 have been cancelled, and claim(s) 8-13 have been added. Thus, claims 1 and 3-13 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant principally argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the claim is integrated into a practical application. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant points to the newly amended limitations that utilize a specific trigger to cause the bed monitoring system to take an active step between different physical sensor inputs (i.e. load sensors switch to image or thermal information detector). In order to determine whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception there are three considerations per MPEP 2106.05(g). However, what the applicant has described appears to fall into an example that courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, more specifically:
Selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated
iii. Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
This appears to fall into this category of selecting a particular data source that fits a particular need to be manipulated and presented to the user. Furthermore, the additional elements fail to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Per the MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), Examples of "treatment" and prophylaxis" limitations encompass limitations that treat or prevent a disease or medical condition, including, e.g., acupuncture, administration of medication, dialysis, organ transplants, phototherapy, physiotherapy, radiation therapy, surgery, and the like. However, these claims merely display the determined contents of the body motion of the subject on a display. Therefore, the examiner is not convinced and the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims is maintained and the newly added limitations and claims addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention details a system (Step 1) directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 1 and 4-13 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1 and 4-13 recites at least one step or instruction for determining ventilatory threshold for a subject, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I). Accordingly, each of Claims 1 and 4-13 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
A bed monitoring system for monitoring a subject on a bed, the system comprising:
four load detectors which are to be placed respectively in or under four legs of the bed and which are configured to detect a load of the subject (additional element);
a controller (additional element) configured to:
calculate a center of gravity position of the subject based on the detected load of the subject (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
obtain a temporal variation of the calculated center of gravity position of the subject (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
obtain body motion information based on the obtained temporal variation of the calculated center of gravity position of the subject, the body motion information being information on a movement of a whole or a part of the whole body of the subject different from a movement caused by a respiration of the subject, the body motion information being a size and direction of a movement of the calculated center of gravity position of the subject (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III));
wherein the body motion information includes information on a large body motion of the subject and information on a small body motion of the subject, an amount of movement of the calculated center of gravity position of the subject within a predetermined time period caused by the small body motion being smaller than an amount of movement of the calculated center of gravity position of the subject within the predetermined time period caused by the large body motion, and (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B))
the controller is further configured to determine the information on the large body motion of the subject and determine the information on the small body motion of the subject (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B));
and calculate a respiratory rate of the subject based on the obtained temporal variation of the calculated center of gravity position of the subject and the obtained body motion information obtained (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B));
a subject information detector configured to detect image information of the subject and/or thermal temperature distribution of the subject (additional element), wherein
the subject information detector is at least one of an image information detector configured to detect the image information of the subject or a thermal temperature information detector configured to detect the thermal temperature distribution of the subject, wherein the at least one image information detector or thermal temperature information detector is located above the bed so as to detect an upper surface of the bed (additional element)
and the controller is further configured to:
estimate contents of a body motion of the subject by using the body motion information of the subject based on correspondence between the body motion information of the subject and the contents of the body motion of the subject, the contents of the body motion including information about which part of the body of the subject is moved (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B));
determine that the contents of the body motion of the subject is inconclusive because the body motion information of the subject corresponds to a plurality of types of the contents of the small body motion of the subject, and then instead determine the contents of the body motion of the subject base don’t he image information of the subject or the thermal temperature distribution of the subject (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B));
and display the determined contents of the body motion of the subject on a display (additional element).
Similarly, Claim 13 recites
A bed monitoring system for monitoring a subject on a bed, the system comprising:
four load detectors which are to be placed respectively in or under four legs of the bed and which are configured to detect a load of the subject; (additional element)
a controller (additional element) configured to:
calculate a center of gravity position of the subject based on the detected load of the subject; (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B))
obtain a temporal variation of the calculated center of gravity position of the subject; (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B))
obtain body motion information based on the obtained temporal variation of the calculated center of gravity position of the subject, the body motion information being information on a movement of a whole or a part of the whole body of the subject different from a movement caused by a respiration of the subject, the body motion information being a size and direction of a movement of the calculated center of gravity position of the subject; and (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B))
calculate a respiratory rate of the subject based on the obtained temporal variation of the calculated center of gravity position of the subject and the obtained body motion information; and (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B))
a subject information detector configured to detect image information of the subject and/or thermal temperature distribution of the subject, wherein (additional element)
the subject information detector is at least one of an image information detector configured to detect the image information of the subject or a thermal temperature information detector configured to detect the thermal temperature distribution of the subject, wherein the at least one image information detector or thermal temperature information detector is located above the bed so as to detect an upper surface of the bed; (additional element)
and the controller is further configured to:
estimate contents of a body motion of the subject by using the body motion information of the subject based on correspondence between the body motion information of the subject and the contents of the body motion of the subject, the contents of the body motion including information about which part of the body of the subject is moved; (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B))
determine that the contents of the body motion of the subject is inconclusive because the body motion information of the subject corresponds to a plurality of types of the contents of the body motion of the subject, and then cause the subject information detector to begin to detect image information of the subject and/or thermal temperature distribution of the subject, and then determine the contents of the body motion of the subject based on the image information of the subject or the thermal temperature distribution of the subject; and (a judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B))
display the determined contents of the body motion of the subject on a display. (additional element)
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their respective dependent Claims 4-12) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1 and 13), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: load detectors, controller, and subject information detector are generic and used for data gathering adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception in independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., external programming device or computer as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 13 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1 and 4-13 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: load detectors, controller, and subject information detector. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, [0017]-[0018] details the use of a load detector that may include a beam type load cell with such generality that they are generic and commercially available. Further, in applicant’s specification [0024] details the use of a control unit (i.e. controller) that utilizes exclusive or general purpose computer that is generic and commercially available. Per Applicant’s specification, [0011] and [0020]-[0022] details the subject information detector may include and image/audio/temperature information detecting unit which can correspond to a generic video camera, a generic microphone or a thermography device that are generic and commercially available.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term computer is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the controller. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1 and 4-13 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the method and system of Claims 1 and 4-13 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 4-13 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1 and 4-13, amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1 and 4-13 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSANDRA F HOUGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7902. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7 am - 4 pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
Jessandra Hough December 4, 2025
/J.F.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796