DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 2/9/26. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-16, and 18-20 are pending. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected.
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 .
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 1-5, 7, 9-16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/687,201. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention and the co-pending application recite substantially the same structures, including “an array of actuation cells,” “an array of pressure sensors,” and “a control system.” Furthermore, both the claimed invention and the apparatus of the co-pending application receive pressure measurements and use a controller to analyze those pressure measurements, and to provide an output in the form of actuating actuation cells.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the recited claims can be found entirely within the subject matter of the claims of the co-pending claims. The claims of the instant Application are therefore fully encompassed by (and anticipated by) the claims of the patent regardless of the differing scope of the claims. Furthermore, to the degree to which the claims are different from the patented claims, the changes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or
(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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2019/0175100 to Etleb et al. (“Etleb”).
Claim 1. An in-bed haptic system, comprising: a sensing pad (Etleb, Fig. 7, #708) configured for placement between a user and a bed and comprising: an array of actuation cells (Etleb, Fig. 7, #714), each actuation cell in the array of actuation cells configured to actuate in response to a fluid being introduced into each actuation cell (the cells of Etleb are air inflatable); an array of pressure sensors (Etleb paragraph [0093] discloses “a pressure sensing layer (see FIGS. 27A, 27B and 27C, 2726) and may contain a plurality of sensors”), each pressure sensor in the array of pressure sensors configured to output pressure measurements; and a control system (Etleb, paragraph [0264] discloses a pressure controller #2758) configured to: receive the pressure measurements from the array of pressure sensors; generate a pressure map (see at least Etleb Fig. 12) for the user based on the pressure measurements and a position of each pressure sensor on the sensing pad; determine, using the pressure map, a subset of the array of actuation cells corresponding to an anatomical feature of the user (Etleb, paragraph [0112]), the determined subset of actuation cells comprising multiple actuation cells (Etleb paragraphs [0107] and [0120]; “inflate and/or deflate certain air cells associated with certain limbs or body areas”); in response to detecting a trigger, generate an alert (Etleb, paragraph [0145] discloses “haptic feedback or audible alerts”; furthermore, the system of Etleb generates “actionable insights” which constitute an “alert”; see Fig. 17 and paragraph [0140], which discuses “notifications”); and actuate, as part of the alert, the subset of the array of actuation cells in accordance with a predetermined sequence (Etleb, paragraph [0120] discloses using collected data to “process and analyze the data in order to produce an instruction set which may include instructions inflate and/or deflate certain air cells associated with certain limbs or body areas”; this set of instructions is a predetermined sequence of inflation and deflation) defining inflation and deflation (Etleb paragraphs [0107] and [0120]) parameters of the determined subset of the array of actuation cells to provide a haptic output (Etleb, paragraphs [0140]-[0145] disclose “actionable insights” which may be performed autonomously by the AI model, including inflation or deflation of air cells, discussed in paragraph [0120], and also “haptic feedback or audible alerts” in paragraph [0145]).
Claim 2. The in-bed haptic system of claim 1, wherein: each pressure sensor in the array of pressure sensors is associated with an actuation cell in the array of actuation cells and is configured to sense a fluid pressure inside a corresponding actuation cell; the control system is configured to pressurize individual cells of the array of actuation cells; and the control system is configured to receive the pressure measurements taken during the pressurization of the individual cells (Etleb, paragraph [0080] discusses individual control of air cells).
Claim 3. The in-bed haptic system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to: compare the pressure map to a set of stored pressure map data; and determine a posture of the user based on the comparison (Etleb, at least paragraph [0093] discusses monitoring a user’s position).
Claim 4. The in-bed haptic system of claim 3, wherein the set of stored pressure map data comprises pressure maps corresponding to different postures of the user (see Etleb paragraphs [0064] and [0229] as well as Figs. 12 and 15 which disclose prior art knowledge of recording a user’s posture; regarding “stored pressure maps”, Etleb discloses the use of historical pressure data in at least paragraph [0115]).
Claim 7. The in-bed haptic system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to determine a physiological parameter of the user using pressure sensors from the array of pressure sensors that correspond to the subset of the array of actuation cells (Etleb paragraphs [0062]-[0063] disclose the determination of various physiological parameters, including “interface pressure measurement” which inherently is measured with pressure sensors).
Claim 16. A method of operating a pressure sensing haptic device to identify a posture of a user, the method comprising: receiving a set of pressure measurements from an array of pressure sensors positioned on a user support structure; generating a pressure map for the user based on the set of pressure measurements and positions of pressure sensors within the array of pressure sensors; comparing the pressure map to a set of stored pressure maps, the set of stored pressure maps comprising posture maps that are each associated with a specific posture; identifying the posture of the user based on the comparison of the pressure map to the set of stored pressure maps; determining, using the pressure map, a set of actuators positioned under the user and corresponding to an anatomical feature of the user, the determined set of actuators comprising multiple actuations cells; in response to detecting a trigger, generate an alert; and actuating, as part of the alert, as part of the alert, the set of actuators in accordance with a predetermined sequence defining inflation and deflation parameters of the determined set of actuators to provide a haptic output (claim 16 is directed toward method steps that are performed by the structures recited in claim 1; under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device; when the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process; In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986); the prior art teachings of Etleb contain all of the claimed structures of Applicant's invention as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above; furthermore, Applicant’s invention can inherently be used to carry out the claimed method, therefore the prior art, which contains all of the claimed structures, can also inherently be used to carry out the claimed method; thus, the combination of the prior art would necessarily perform the method claimed, and the prior art references read on the claimed method steps; see MPEP §2112.02)).
Claim 18. The method of claim 16, wherein the causing the pressure sensing haptic device to actuate the set of actuators comprises causing the pressure sensing haptic device to inflate a set of actuation bladders coupled to the pressure sensing haptic device.
Claim 19. The method of claim 16, further comprising: identifying a set of sensors positioned under the user based on the pressure map; and in response to identifying the set of sensors, causing one or more sensors in the set of sensors to measure a physiological parameter of the user.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 5 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0175100 to Etleb et al. (“Etleb”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0178887 to Correa Ramirez et al. (“Correa Ramirez”).
Claim 5. The in-bed haptic system of claim 1, wherein the control system is configured to: compare the pressure map to a set of stored pressure map data; and determine a specific user from a set of one or more users based on the comparison (Etleb does not disclose determining a user from sensed data; however Correa Ramirez teaches a similar bed system which uses sensor data to identify a specific user; see at least Correa Ramirez paragraph [0060]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed of Etleb with the capability of Correa Ramirez to identify a user in order for the bed to be used by two people simultaneously as seen in Correa Ramirez Fig. 1).
Claim 9. A pressure mapping system, comprising: a sensing pad configured to be integrated with a user support structure and comprising: an array of actuation cells, each actuation cell in the array of actuation cells configured to actuate in response to a fluid being introduced into an actuation cell; an array of pressure sensors, each pressure sensor in the array of pressure sensors coupled with the actuation cell of the array of actuation cells, configured to measure a fluid pressure within a corresponding actuation cell, and output one or more signals indicative of the measured fluid pressure for each actuation cell; and a control system configured to: receive the one or more signals from the array of pressure sensors; determine that a user is contacting the user support structure; in response to determining the user contact, generate a pressure map for the user based on the received one or more signals; identify the user as a specific user based on the pressure map; determine, using the pressure map, a subset of the array of actuation cells corresponding to an anatomical feature of the user, the determined subset of actuation cells comprising multiple actuation cells; in response to detecting a trigger, generate an alert; and actuate, as part of the alert, the subset of the array of actuation cells in accordance with a predetermined sequence defining inflation and deflation parameters of the determined subset of the array of actuation cells to provide a haptic output (Etleb teaches a bed with a set of pneumatic cells and sensors as discussed above with respect to claim 1; regarding limitations directed toward identifying specific users, Correa Ramirez teaches functionality directed toward two simultaneous users, as discussed above with respect to claim 5).
Claim 10. The pressure mapping system of claim 9, wherein the control system is configured to identify the user by comparing the pressure map to a set of registered pressure maps each associated with the specific user (see at least Correa Ramirez paragraph [0060]).
Claim 11. The pressure mapping system of claim 10, wherein the control system is further configured to: compare the pressure map to a set of registered posture maps associated with the user; and determine a posture of the user based on the comparison of the pressure map to the set of registered pressure maps (see Etleb paragraphs [0064] and [0229] as well as Figs. 12 and 15 which disclose prior art knowledge of recording a user’s posture).
Claim 12. The pressure mapping system of claim 9, wherein the control system is further configured to: identify a subset of pressure sensors from the array of pressure sensors that are positioned underneath the user; and operate the subset of pressure sensors to measure a physiological parameter of the user (Etleb paragraphs [0062]-[0063] disclose the determination of various physiological parameters, including “interface pressure measurement” which inherently is measured with pressure sensors, and additionally is location specific to determine the risk of pressure ulcers at any localized, or subset, location; see paragraph [0011]).
Claim 13. The pressure mapping system of claim 9, wherein: pressure sensors in the array of pressure sensors comprise a first sensor type; the sensing pad further comprises a second array of sensors comprising a second sensor type, different from the first sensor type; and the control system is configured to operate the second array of sensors to generate a second map for the user based on outputs from the second array of sensors (Etleb paragraphs [0075]-[0077] discloses “various sensory layers” which measure pressure, wetness, and temperature, also measurement of heart rate and movement patterns is discussed in paragraph [0062]; additionally, Correa Ramirez paragraph [0060] discloses separate sensor arrays that identify different users and which reads on a second set of array sensors).
Claim 14. The pressure mapping system of claim 13, wherein the control system is further configured to: identify a subset of sensors from the second array of sensors that are positioned underneath the user; and operate the subset of sensors from the second array of sensors to measure a physiological parameter of the user (Etleb paragraphs [0062]-[0063] disclose the determination of various physiological parameters, including “interface pressure measurement” which inherently is measured with pressure sensors, and additionally is location specific to determine the risk of pressure ulcers at any localized, or subset, location; see paragraph [0011]; also see Correa Ramirez paragraph [0060] which extract data from a subset of sensors for each of two different users).
Claim 15. The pressure mapping system of claim 13, wherein the second sensor type comprises at least one of a temperature sensor (Etleb paragraphs [0075]-[0077] discloses “various sensory layers” which measure pressure, wetness, and temperature), an acoustic sensor, a proximity sensor (Etleb paragraphs [0093] discloses “measure user’s position”), a resonant sensor, a strain sensor (Etleb paragraphs [0063] discloses “strain gauge based force sensors”), or a combination thereof.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2019/0175100 to Etleb et al. (“Etleb”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0079662 to Dzioba et al. (“Dzioba”).
Claim 20. The method of claim 16, further comprising prior to receiving the set of pressure measurements, causing the pressure sensing haptic device to inflate a set of actuation bladders coupled to the pressure sensing haptic device, wherein the set of pressure measurements comprises fluid pressure measurements within the set of actuation bladders (while Etleb discloses inflation and deflation of air bladders, Etleb does not explicitly state that the bladders are inflated prior to receiving pressure measurements; however Dzioba teaches a similar inflatable support apparatus and in paragraphs [0119] and Figs. 16-21 describes various predefined patterns and cycles of inflation, dwell and deflation; Dzioba discloses an “initial inflation may take a predetermined amount of time, for example, about 15 seconds.,” after which data is collected as discussed in paragraph [0121]; therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to inflate the air cells of Etleb “prior to receiving the set of pressure measurements” since Dzioba discloses various inflation schemes in Figs. 16-21 and doing so would have simply been applying a known technique to a known device to yield predictable results; moreover, Etleb paragraph [0113] discloses “having the patient lie down on the mattress for 30 seconds to calibrate the sensors”; one of ordinary skill would have understood that it would be desirable at least from an aesthetic comfort standpoint to inflate the air bladders prior to the patient lying down and therefore “prior to receiving the set of pressure measurements”).
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
With respect to claim 1, Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of Applicant’s remarks that the cited art of Etleb does not disclose or teach actuating cells in accordance with a predetermined sequence. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this assertion. Regarding actuating air cells, Etleb discloses inflation and deflation of air cells in at least paragraph [0107]. Regarding a pre-determined sequence of inflation or deflation, Etleb discloses collecting initial data in paragraphs [0108]-[0119], then in paragraph [0120] discloses using that collected data to “process and analyze the data in order to produce an instruction set which may include instructions inflate and/or deflate certain air cells associated with certain limbs or body areas.” This set of instructions is a predetermined sequence of inflation and deflation.
Applicant additionally argues that Etleb does not disclose or teach actuating cells in accordance with a predetermined sequence as part of an alert. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Etleb, paragraph [0145] explicitly discloses “haptic feedback or audible alerts.” Furthermore, the system of Etleb generates “actionable insights” which constitute an “alert” as discussed in paragraph [0140] and Fig. 17. Etleb paragraph [0141] further describes “autonomous use” in which the apparatus automatically takes action. One of these actionable actions is described in paragraph [0269], being “pressure pump 2738 may introduce and/or remove air from air cells 2710 in order to increase and/or reduce the pressure therein where the applicable air cells 2710 are located at positions proximate to certain points of body of a user (e.g., a hospital patient), if directed by the system 100.” Therefore the system not only actuates air cells, but performs a predetermined sequence as a result of determining “positions proximate to certain points of body of a user” and performs this action as a result of an alert, which constitutes “time-based notifications” (paragraph [0140]), or “haptic feedback or audible alerts” (paragraph [0145]).
Applicant further argues that “one skilled in the art would not be motivated to modify Etleb to use air cells to provide haptic feedback because it would change the principle of operation of Etleb.” However, in the above rejections, in view of Etleb under 35 USC §102, there is no suggestion to modify Etleb. Moreover, Etleb, without any modification, provides for changing pressures in air cells in a mattress. A change in pressure of an air cell is inherently a type of haptic feedback. Moreover, Applicant’s assertion that such a functionality would change the principle of operation of Etleb is not correct, as this already, without any modification, is the principle of operation of Etleb.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached on 571-270-3654. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights