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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Status of Claims
The amendments and remarks filed on 20MAR2025 have been entered and considered.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, & 19-22 are currently pending.
Claim 1 & 11 has been amended.
Claims 5, 7, 16, & 18 were previously canceled.
No claims have been withdrawn.
Claims 21-22 have been added.
No new matter has been found.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, & 19-22 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20MAR2025 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Pages 7-11of the Remarks):
“It is not possible to render a user interface via a display “in the mind” as alleged. When considered as a whole, the claims clearly recite features that are not performed in the mind. Rather, these are processes that given their data intensive nature cannot be simply carried out in the mind. A claim with limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a metal process. Thus, when considered as a whole, this subject matter does not fall within the “mental processes” grouping and the claims do not recite an abstract idea”
The examiner is not persuaded. The user interface and display amount to generic computer components for implanting the abstract idea on a computer. The Examiner is not asserting rendering to the display is part of the abstract idea and is instead asserting it is an additional element.
“However, the current claims do not recite mathematical formulas. When the claims are considered as a whole, it can be seen that they are directed to more than just mathematical computations. As was the case in Diehr, the use of a mathematical formula does not make the claim unpatentable. An invention is not considered to be ineligible for patenting simply because it involves a judicial exception.”
The examiner is not persuaded by the argument that using a mathematical formula doesn’t make a claim unpatentable. The claims recite a mathematical concepts without showing how to arrive at the results based on the recited calculations. The claims can recite a mathematical concept without reciting a formula. Limitation “analyze the seismic sensor data to determine continuous and real-time measurements of the plurality of characteristics of the subject” is both an observation of the data to determine relationships, and requiring data processing. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. In this case, a human could analyze (i.e., evaluate) the heart biomarkers using the technology listed, or by a pen and paper with the human mind. Therefore, the claims involve the judicial exception but do not provide further limitations that add to the abstract idea, per Step 2A of the 101 analyses.
“The Office Action appears to fail to consider the claims as a whole in the evaluation of the practical application. As stated in MPEP § 2106.04(d)”
The examiner emphasizes that the claims are always considered as a whole for the purpose of 101 evaluations, but is not cited as full limitations for the purpose of conciseness.
“The present claims are directed to a specific technical solution to a practical application that addresses contact monitoring of a subject. As indicated in Applicants’ specification sleep monitoring of vital signs, changes in posture, and even the posture of the subject is extremely important, and even a life saver, for people with undiagnosed sleep apnea or other conditions (para. 0002). Situations can arise that require prompt detection and response. Thus, the claimed subject matter improvements the monitoring and response capabilities, while minimizing the impact on the subject during sleep. In contrast to the Office Action allegation, this subject matter reflects a technical improvement at least because it provides significant improvements in the ability to monitor and respond to the condition of the subject on the bed frame structure based on its ability to detect an event based upon characteristics of the subject comprising heart rate, respiratory rate, movement of the subject and posture of the subject, and thus is directly tied to an improvement of a practical application.”
The examiner disagrees. The benefits of the invention that are being argued is in the abstract idea and not related to any additional elements in the claim. As noted in MPEP §2106.04(d)(II):
“The analysis under Step 2A Prong Two is the same for all claims reciting a judicial exception, whether the exception is an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon (including products of nature). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations introduced in subsection I supra, and discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). “.
The examiner has addressed every additional element, and they have been found by the courts as elements that do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application per (MPEP §106.04(d)(I). While Applicant recites improvements associated with the abstract idea, the abstract idea itself cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP §2106.05(a):
“It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. Additionally, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) “
“This subject matter is not “well-understood, routine, or conventional” because, unlike conventional methods, the recited steps confine the claimed subject matter to a particular useful application that helps to monitor and respond to a condition of a subject on a bed frame structure based on its ability to detect an event based upon characteristics of the subject comprising heart rate, respiratory rate, movement of the subject and posture of the subject.”
The examiner disagrees as the claims are not recited in a manner that is sufficiently structural or detailed in the processes enough to not be considered generic.
Applicant's arguments filed 20MAR2025 regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 (See Pages 11-26 of the Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Claims 1-2, 6 and 8-10:
On Page 13 Lines 10-12 of the Remarks, Applicant states:
“While Sato discloses that the alleged sensor (i.e., piezoelectric transducer 2) is coupled to a flexible vibration transmitting plate 1, Sato does not teach or suggest that the vibration transmitting plate 1 is a bed frame structure supporting the subject.”
The examiner is not persuaded, as ¶0060 of Sato shows that the sensors can be attached to different furniture. Though this does not explicitly disclose being attached to the bedframe structure, one can interpret it as a viable option based on the disclosure of Sato ¶0060. However, for the purposes of examination, reference Jia is cited in (Jia Figure 12 Showing the attachment of the seismometer to the bedframe structure that the patient will use.) as reciting the feature of the attaching to a bedframe structure.
On Page 13 Lines 12-19 of the Remarks, Applicant states:
“The addition of Sullivan and Halperin does not cure the deficiency of the rejection. While Sullivan discloses an array of sensors 20 arranged in a mattress 21 that pick up sounds (para. 0047), Sullivan does not teach or suggest a sensor coupled to a bed frame structure supporting a subject. While Halperin discloses a motion sensor 30 in, on, or under a surface 37 comprising a mattress, a mattress covering, a sheet, a mattress pad, and/or a mattress cover (para. 0615) as shown in FIG. 1, Halperin does not teach or suggest a sensor coupled to a bed frame structure supporting a subject.”
The examiner has issued a new ground for rejection as necessitated by the amendments. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn and Reference Sullivan is no longer relied upon. Reference Jia has been cited in (Jia Figure 12 Showing the attachment of the seismometer to the bedframe structure that the patient will use.) as reciting the feature of the attaching to a bedframe structure.
On Page 13 Lines 22-25 of the Remarks, Applicant states:
“Moreover, insofar as the sensor is not coupled to the bed frame structure, Sato in view of Sullivan and Halperin does not disclose, teach, or suggest that “the application causes the at least one computing device to... obtain real-time seismic sensor data associated with the vibration of the bed frame structure from the sensor,” as recited in amended claim 1.”
The examiner is persuaded as the amendments have obviated the rejections, and reference Jia has been cited to teach the amended language as seen below.
On Page 14 Lines 25-26 of the Remarks, Applicant states:
“Variations in amplitude representing movement such as changes in posture is not the same as determining a posture of the subject. Sato is silent regarding determining a posture of the subject.”
The examiner disagrees. The specification of the instant application does not further detail what determining a posture means, and therefore based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, variations representing movement such as posture changes, , can mean determining a posture since it shows the change from a patient sitting in bed to a patient falling out of bed, and one can determine the posture based on this information.
On Pages 14-15 of the Remarks, Applicant states:
“The addition of Sullivan and Halperin does not cure the deficiency of the rejection. Sullivan does not teach or suggest determining movement of the subject or posture of the subject on the bed frame structure. Furthermore, while Halperin discloses that the control unit is configured to detect a change in posture of the subject (para. 0124), Halperin does not teach or suggest determining posture of the subject on the bed frame structure. As such, the combination of Sato, Sullivan and Halperin does not disclose or suggest detecting an event associated with the subject based upon the determined heart rate, respiratory rate, posture of the subject, and movement of the subject. Thus, Sato in view of Sullivan and Halperin does not disclose, teach, or suggest that “analyze the seismic sensor data to determine continuous and real-time measurements of the plurality of characteristics of the subject, the plurality of characteristics comprising: a heart rate, a respiratory rate, a movement of the subject, and a posture of the subject on the bed frame structure... [and] detect an event associated with the subject based upon the determined heart rate, respiratory rate, posture of the subject, and movement of the subject; and generate an alert based upon the detected event, the alert initiating a response to the detected event,” as recited in amended claim 4.”
The examiner maintains that Halperin teaches (Halperin 389 “a control unit, configured to: receive a specified range of values for a clinical parameter, responsively to the sensed motion, calculate a value of the clinical parameter of the subject at least once every 10 seconds, during a period having a duration of at least 30 seconds, and only upon finding that the value falls outside the specified range over 50% of the times it is calculated throughout the period, drive the output unit to generate an alert.”; ¶00697; ¶0750) in which the clinical parameters can represent cardiac, respiratory, or posture information. While the examiner maintains that Sato ¶0060 shows motivation for having the sensor at a bed frame structure, Halperin teaches processing inputs to make determinations about the data. In view of the amendments, Sullivan has been withdrawn and Jia added to show the sensors being used in a bed frame.
Regarding Claim 3:
Applicant argues (Page 15 Lines 1-9 of the Remarks):
“While Sato shows waveforms of the signals, Sato is silent regarding phase of the signals, much less estimating the phase to determine the respiratory rate. Nor does the Office Action indicate any teachings in Sato to support such a conclusion. “The addition of Sullivan and Halperin does not cure the deficiency of the rejection, nor does the Office Action rely on Sullivan and/or Halperin, either individually or in combination, to teach or suggest the features. Thus, Sato in view of Sullivan further in view of Halperin does not disclose, teach or suggest “the application further causes the at least one computing device to at least determine the respiratory rate by estimating an amplitude, frequency and phase associated with the seismic sensor data”
”
The examiner disagrees. It is maintained that Sato teaches the limitation because it describes in ¶0056 that the respiration rate can be detected based on provided waveforms. The inclusion of waveforms inherently means you can detect the phase, amplitude, frequency, etc. as it is all used in making the waveform that is provided. Based on observations and simple calculations, one of skill in the art would understand how to determine information based on the provided waveforms, such as the phase, amplitude, and frequency. The secondary references Sullivan and Halperin are not relied upon for teaching these limitations. Therefore, the examiner maintains that the references teach the limitations as previously cited.
Regarding Claim 4 (See Pages 17-19 of the Remarks):
Applicant argues that the references Sato, Sullivan, and Halperin does not teach the claim limitations.
The examiner disagrees in that the information of claim 1 has been shown to be taught by the references. Based on the amendments, a new ground for rejection has been necessitated. Sullivan is no longer relied upon, and for the limitations of claim 4, Larson has been cited as teaching limitation wherein a posture of the subject is determined according to an instantaneous amplitude of respiration extracted from sensor data (Larson ¶0106 “Similarly, patients with morbid obesity or obstructive sleep apnea can develop respiratory distress when they lie flat (the extra weight due to fat around the chest and neck can increase the work of breathing) and these patient's breathing patterns can change based on the postural changes.” Where the instantaneous amplitude of respiration at the broadest reasonable interpretation is a amplitude representing respiration at any given moment).
Regarding Claims 11-13, 17, & 19-20 (See Pages 19-22 of the Remarks)
The examiner maintains that the references teach the limitations as argued similar to that of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 14, Applicant argues (Pages 22-24 of the Remarks):
“Sato in view of Sullivan further in view of Halperin does not disclose, teach or suggest “determining the respiratory rate by estimating an amplitude, frequency and phase associated with the seismic sensor data,” as recited in claim 14 and the Office Action has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness using the art of record.”
The examiner disagrees for similar reasons as discussed regarding claim 3. Therefore, the examiner is not persuaded.
Regarding Claim 15 (See Pages 24-26 of the Remarks)
The examiner agrees per the reasons discussed under Claim 4 arguments above.
Claim Objections
Claim10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation “wherein the sensor is not in direct contact with the subject” is closely worded to claiming the human body, and its specific relationship to a structure. To avoid generating issues under 35 U.S.C 101, the examiner suggests amending to “wherein the sensor is not in direct contact with the subject when in use”, or something similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
Regarding the limitation “the alert initiating a response to a detected event” found in Lines 21-22 of claim 1, the examiner cannot find support for the recited step of “the alert initiating a response” in the specification. The closest disclosure can be found in ¶0017 “In various aspects, the at least one computing device is in communication with a smart device configured to communicate with a third party, and generating the alert further comprises instructing the smart device to send a communication with the third party. In various aspects, the sensor is not in direct contact with the subject.”, ¶0019. Additionally, ¶0026 is show to disclose “In some embodiments, the alert can comprise a visual and/or auditory alert. In other embodiments, the warning module 118 can be coupled to a communication device that can notify an emergency entity (e.g., hospital, doctor, 911, etc.) and/or other entity. For example, the warning module 118 can be in communication with a smart device (e.g., smart speaker) that is capable of making an emergency call and/or otherwise notifying emergency personal and/or other persons.”. These do not provide a disclosure for how the alert further causes a response to the detected event. Therefore, the limitation lacks written description.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
Regarding the limitation “the alert initiating a response” found in Lines 21-22 of claim 1, This is indefinite because the structure of the alert that is capable of initiating a response is not provided. It is not clear if the alert is its own response that causes a secondary response, or if it is part of the response to the detected event as recited in line 22. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is interpreting this as an alert being made in response to a detected event. Clarification is requested.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8-10, & 22 are objected to for depending upon rejected claim 1.
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 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, & 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process and a mathematical function without significantly more. MPEP 2106(III) outlines steps for determining whether a claim is directed to statutory subject matter. The stepwise analysis for the instant claim is provided here.
Step 1: Statutory Categories
Claims 1 & 11 are directed to an apparatus (i.e., machine) and a method (i.e., process) respectively, and thus meets the step 1 requirements.
Step 2A: Prong 1; Judicial Exception
Regarding claims 1 & 11 the following claim limitations are an abstract idea:
“analyze the seismic sensor data to determine continuous and real-time measurements of the plurality of characteristics of the subject”;, which is a mental process in addition to mathematical when given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I), the mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. In this case, a clinician can make an observation of the data to determine relationships between the data and subject characteristics. Limitation “detect an event associated with the subject based upon the determined at additionally is a mental process. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), the mental process grouping includes observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions, and mathematical concepts are considered laws of nature per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, a human could analyze (i.e., evaluate) the heart biomarkers using the technology listed, or by a pen and paper with the human mind, since a clinician could look at diagnostic data and determine some sort of event form the data.
Step 2A: Prong 2; Additional Elements to Integrate J.E. Into A Practical Application
Regarding claims 1 & 11, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The following claim elements do not add any meaningful limitation to the abstract idea: “generate a user interface comprising a display of the determined measurements of the plurality of characteristics”, “render the user interface via a display” are generic computer structure and generic implementation of the abstract idea on a computer such as data input/output.; “obtain real-time seismic sensor data from the sensor associated with the vibration of the bed frame structure”, where the “bed frame” amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and obtaining real-time seismic sensor data is insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering , the “seismometer sensor configured to sense vibration of the bed frame” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering; and “receiving, via at least one computing device, sensor data from a sensor coupled to the bed frame structure” where the “bed frame” amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and receiving, via at least one computing device, sensor data is insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering; “at least one computing device” and “an application executable in the at least one computing device” amounts to generic computer structure and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer; “obtain real-time seismic sensor data associated with the vibration of the bed frame structure from the sensor” is insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering; the data display is insignificant extra-solution activity of data reporting; the “at least one computing device” and “ an application executable in the at least one computing device” amounts to generic computer structure and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer; and “generate an alert based upon the detected event, the alert initiating a response to the detected event” is insignificant, extra-solution activity of post-solution activity; and “the seismometer sensor is a geophone.” amounts to generic computer structure for the purposes of data gathering.
Step 2B: Significantly More/Inventive Concept
Regarding claims 1 & 11, the abstract idea when considered separately and in
combination, does not amount to significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) than the abstract idea itself . As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application: “generate a user interface comprising a display of the determined measurements of the plurality of characteristics”, “render the user interface via a display” are generic computer structure and generic implementation of the abstract idea on a computer such as data input/output.; “obtain real-time seismic sensor data from the sensor associated with the vibration of the bed frame structure”, where the “bed frame” amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and obtaining real-time seismic sensor data is insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering , the “seismometer sensor configured to sense vibration of the bed frame” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering; and “receiving, via at least one computing device, sensor data from a sensor coupled to the bed frame structure” where the “bed frame” amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and receiving, via at least one computing device, sensor data is insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering; “at least one computing device” and “an application executable in the at least one computing device” amounts to generic computer structure and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer; “obtain real-time seismic sensor data associated with the vibration of the bed frame structure from the sensor” is insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering; the data display is insignificant extra-solution activity of data reporting; the “at least one computing device” and “ an application executable in the at least one computing device” amounts to generic computer structure and mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer; and “generate an alert based upon the detected event, the alert initiating a response to the detected event” is insignificant, extra-solution activity of post-solution activity; and “the seismometer sensor is a geophone.” amounts to generic computer structure for the purposes of data gathering.
Dependent claims2-4, 6, 8-10, 12-15, 17, & 19-22 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea of claim 1,11 respectively. The dependent claim limitations are directed to determining the biomarkers based on given sensor data (Claims 2-4, 13-15), detecting an event based on changes to parameter thresholds (Claims 6, 16), alerting of the events (Claims 8-9, 19-20), further defining the sensors (Claims 21-22), which are insignificant extra-solution activity.
In summary, claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, & 19-22 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and, therefore, are patent ineligible.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-14, 17, & 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US Publication Number 20090054792; Previously Cited) in view of Halperin et al. (US Publication Number 20120132211; Previously Cited), and Jia et al. (Z. Jia et al., "HB-Phone: A Bed-Mounted Geophone-Based Heartbeat Monitoring System," 2016 15th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN), Vienna, Austria, 2016, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1109/IPSN.2016.7460676).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses a system for monitoring a plurality of characteristics of a subject based on vibration signals of a structure supporting the subject, the system comprising: a sensor coupled to the structure supporting the subject (Sato Abstract “Heartbeat/respiration sensor 4 comprises flexible vibration transmitting plate 1 formed with a plurality of air vents 3, and piezoelectric transducer 2 mounted on vibration transmitting plate 1.”; ¶0055 “For example, with heartbeat/respiration sensor 4 placed below the body of a subject at bedtime, the subject can be monitored for heart rate and respiration rate, and simple analysis can be made on the subject's sleeping state and sleeping pattern”; ¶0060 “As further applications, heartbeat/respiration sensor 4 can be attached to a driver's seat in a variety of traveling means (car, train, aircraft and the like) to monitor the driver for a health condition, or heartbeat/respiration sensor 4 can be attached to the back of a patient chair in the examination room of a hospital to examine the patient without requiring the patient to take off clothes.” Which shows the sensors can be attached to furniture); where the sensor is a seismometer sensor configured to sense vibration of the structure (Sato ¶0020 “Also, since the piezoelectric transducer is sensitive enough to detect not only pressure and vibrations but also sound, the heartbeat/respiration sensor can sufficiently detect the heartbeat and respiration even when it is encased in the cover and placed below the body of the newborn infant.”; ¶0050); analyze the seismic sensor data to determine continuous and real-time measurements of the plurality of characteristics of the subject, the plurality of characteristics comprising a heart rate, a respiratory rate (Sato ¶0034 “IG. 10 is a block diagram illustrating a body monitor which enables a heart rate, respiration rate and the like to be monitored based on a signal generated by the heartbeat/respiration sensor”; ¶0055; ¶0050), a movement of the subject, and a posture of the subject (Sato ¶0057 “Mute signal 18 indicates that the body of the subject has largely moved out of the detectable area of heartbeat/respiration sensor 4, in which case it is thought that the subject has fallen down from the bed, or has left the bed and is moving about.”);; at least one computing device in data communication with the sensor; and an application executable in the at least one computing device; generating a user interface comprising a display of the determined measurements of the plurality of characteristics and rendering the user interface via a display (Sato Figure 10; ¶0054 “Therefore, when the signal (FIG. 11(a)) generated from heartbeat/respiration sensor 4 passes through band-pass filter 9, a cardiac sound signal (FIG. 11(b)) is separated therefrom, and when the signal passes through band-pass filter 10, a respiration signal (FIG. 11(c)) is separated therefrom. Monitor 14 displays the waveforms of these cardiac sound signal and respiration signal, together with the heart rate and respiration rate per unit time, derived from these waveforms. Since I-sound and II-sound can be clearly observed according to this cardiac sound signal, the body monitor can be applied to medical research through analysis of cardiac functions.” Showing that the device has a computing device (i.e. the filters (10) need to be implanted in a computing device to run) which displays processed data after collection and processing.).
Sato does not discloses detecting an event associated with the subject based upon the determined heart rate, respiratory rate, posture of the subject, and movement of the subject; and generate an alert based upon the detected event, the alert initiating response to the detected event; the device further instructed to obtain real-time seismic sensor data from the sensor associated with the vibration of the bedframe structure from the sensor. Halperin in a similar field of patient monitoring teaches detecting an event associated with the subject based upon the determined heart rate, respiratory rate (Halperin ¶0613 “ In an embodiment of the present invention, system 10 is configured to monitor multiple clinical parameters of subject 12, such as respiration rate, heart rate, cough occurrence, body movement, deep inspirations, and/or expiration/inspiration ratio. Pattern analysis module 16 is configured to analyze the respective patterns in order to identify a change in the baseline pattern of the clinical parameters.”), posture of the subject (Halperin ¶0480 “detect a plurality of postures of the subject by analyzing the motion signal at a respective plurality of points in time”; ¶0124 “In an embodiment, the control unit is configured to detect a change in posture of the subject”), and movement of the subject (Halperin ¶0613 “ In an embodiment of the present invention, system 10 is configured to monitor multiple clinical parameters of subject 12, such as respiration rate, heart rate, cough occurrence, body movement, deep inspirations, and/or expiration/inspiration ratio. Pattern analysis module 16 is configured to analyze the respective patterns in order to identify a change in the baseline pattern of the clinical parameters.”); and generate an alert based upon the detected event, the alert initiating response to the detected event (Halperin ¶0740 “In addition, the system continuously calculates the ratios of the signals detected by the different sensors and alerts upon a significant change in these ratios.”; ¶0699 “Upon detection of respiratory depression, the system records the event and optionally generates an alarm via user interface module 24. For some applications, the system is used for monitoring post-operative subjects, or subjects who have been treated with opioids, barbiturates, or other pain-relief drugs. In some instances, the use of such a monitoring system to detect and alarm upon respiratory depression enables the clinician to use such drugs where otherwise they would not be used”); the device further instructed to obtain real-time seismic sensor data from the sensor associated with the vibration of the sensor (Halperin ¶0789 “In an embodiment of the present invention, system 10 identifies the start of the large body movement event by detecting the initial movement phase, and the end of the movement event when the movement phase concludes. For some applications, the system performs real-time signal analysis by evaluating sliding overlapping windows”; ¶0796 showing the movement is detected based on vibration sensing.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure a noninvasive system for monitoring patient vitals as disclosed by Sato with detecting an event associated with the subject based upon the determined heart rate, respiratory rate, posture of the subject, and movement of the subject; and generate an alert based upon the detected event, the alert initiating response to the detected event; the device further instructed to obtain real-time seismic sensor data from the sensor associated with the vibration of the bedframe structure from the sensor as taught by Halperin. The motivation to integrate the technology of Halperin with Sato was to configure a noninvasive system for monitoring a patient’s vitals noninvasively while additionally being able to have a smart system for event detection based on these recorded vitals with the added benefit of user accessibility. This is helpful for the practitioners as the system can be equipped to automatically detect a physiological event that would need intervention or special notice and recording, as the practitioners may not be around when such occurs to catch such an event (Sato ¶0022), where the practitioner may access this data remotely from a system.
Sato in view of Halperin further does not teach a seismometer that is attached to a bedframe structure supporting the patient. Jia in a similar field of patient monitoring teaches a seismometer that is attached to a bedframe structure supporting the patient (Jia Figure 12 Showing the attachment of the seismometer to the bedframe structure that the patient will use.). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to configure a noninvasive system for monitoring patient vitals as disclosed by Sato and Halperin with a seismometer that is attached to a bedframe structure supporting the patient, as taught by Jia for the purposes of creating a noninvasive system such that the sensors are not disturbing the patient while sleeping.
Regarding claim 2, Sato combined with Halperin and Jia teaches the limitations of claim 1. Neither Sato, or Jia teaches wherein when executed, the application further causes the at least one computing device to at least determine the heart rate based at least in part on a local maxima statistics method. Halperin further teaches wherein, when executed, the application further causes the at least one computing device to at least determine the heart rate based at least in part on a local maxima statistics method (Halperin ¶0670 “Alternatively, for some applications, the module identifies the peaks in the heartbeat signals, and calculates time differences between the signal peaks”). The motivation to integrate the technology of Halperin into the invention of Sato, Halperin, and Jia as modified was to configure a noninvasive system for monitoring a patient’s vitals noninvasively while additionally being able to have a smart system for event detection based on these recorded vitals (Sato ¶0012). The additional parameters of determining heart rates based on local maxima statistics give the invention a threshold for calculations to help regulate the monitoring capabilities.
Regarding claim 3, Sato combined with Halperin and Jia teaches the limitations of claim 1. Sato further discloses wherein the application further causes the at least one computing device to at least determine the respiratory rate by estimating an amplitude, frequency, and phase associated with the seismic sensor data (Sato ¶0054 “while band-pass filter 10 has characteristics to pass therethrough a frequency band of a human's respiration signal…when the signal passes through band-pass filter 10, a respiration signal (FIG. 11(c)) is separated therefrom. Monitor 14 displays the waveforms of these cardiac sound signal and respiration signal, together with the heart rate and respiration rate per unit time, derived from these waveforms.”; ¶0056 states that the respiration rate can be detected based on provided waveforms. The inclusion of waveforms inherently means you can detect the phase, amplitude, frequency, etc. as it is all used in making the waveform that is provided. Based on observations and simple calculations, one of skill in the art would understand how to determine information based on the provided waveforms, such as the phase, amplitude, and frequency).
Regarding claim 6, Sato combined with Halperin and Jia teaches the limitations of claim 1. Neither Sato or Jia teaches wherein the event comprises at least one of a fall of the subject, the heart rate being outside a predefined range, the respiratory rate being outside a predefined range, or a change in the posture. Halperin further teaches wherein the event comprises at least one of the heart rate being outside a predefined range, the respiratory rate being outside a predefined range (Halperin ¶0492 “In an embodiment, the clinical parameter is heart rate or respiration rate.”; ¶0692 “System 10 identifies changes in vital signs (e.g. increase in heart rate and respiration rate or reduction in sleep quality) that indicate that a subject may need dialysis treatment or other intervention.”; ¶0844 “system 10 combines two or more changes in clinical parameters. For example, the system may sum the percentage change in representative value of the heart rate and respiration rate over the last 10 minutes, and compare the sum to a threshold. The system generates an alarm upon finding that the sum is greater than the threshold.”), or a change in the posture (Halperin ¶0124 “In an embodiment, the control unit is configured to detect a change in posture of the subject”). The motivation to integrate the technology of Halperin into the invention of Sato, Halperin, and Jia as modified was to configure a noninvasive system for monitoring a patient’s vitals while additionally being able to have a smart system for event detection based on these recorded vitals and changes outside of a threshold to indicate the events occurring. This is helpful for the practitioners as the system can be equipped to automatically detect a physiological event outside of a normal and expected variation, and where the practitioner may access this data remotely from a system to be alerted to such an event, or actively notified when an event occurs (Sato ¶0022; ¶0012).
Regarding claim 8, Sato combined with Halperin and Jia teaches the limitations of claim 1. Neither Sato or Halperin teaches wherein the alert is at least one of an auditory or visual alert. Halperin further teaches wherein the alert is at least one of an auditory or visual alert (Halperin ¶0699 “Upon detection of respiratory depression, the system records the event and optionally generates an alarm via user interface module 24.”; ¶0797 “For some applications, upon receiving the message, the wireless communication device sounds an audible alert, e.g., including an automatically generated voice message that includes the subject's name or number, room number, and/or alert type.”; ¶0618 “Alternatively, user interface 24 provides a visual or audio indication of the taps, and the healthcare worker verifies that his or her taps are correctly displayed before approving the pairing of the sensor to the control unit.”). The motivation to integrate the technology of Halperin into the invention of Sato, Halperin, and Jia as modified was to configure a noninvasive system for monitoring a patient’s vitals noninvasively while additionally being able to have a smart system for event detection based on these recorded vitals. This is helpful for the practitioners as the system can be equipped to automatically detect a physiological event (Sato ¶0022; ¶0012) and where the practitioner may access this data remotely from a system to be alerted to such an event, or actively notified when an event occurs with the use of auditory and visual signals to grab their attention (Halperin ¶0745).
Regarding claim 9, Sato combined with Halperin and Jia teaches the limitations of claim 1. Neither Sato or Jia teaches wherein the at least one computing device is in communication with a smart device configured to communicate with a third party, and generating the alert further comprises instructing the smart device to send a communication with the third party. Halperin further teaches wherein the at least one computing device is in communication with a smart device configured to communicate with a third party, and generating the alert further comprises instructing the smart device to send a communication with the third party (Halperin ¶0599 “User interface 24 typically comprises a dedicated display unit, such as an LCD or CRT monitor. Alternatively or additionally, the user interface 24 comprises a wireless or wired communication port for relaying the acquired raw data and/or processed data to a remote site for further analysis, interpretation, expert review, and/or clinical follow-up. For example, the data may be transferred over a telephone line, and/or over the Internet or another wide-area network, either wirelessly or via wires.”; ¶0672; ¶0797 “For some applications, upon receiving the message, the wireless communication device sounds an audible alert, e.g., including an automatically generated voice message that includes the subject's name or number, room number, and/or alert type.”; ¶0618 “Alternatively, user interface 24 provides a visual or audio indication of the taps, and the healthcare worker verifies that his or her taps are correctly displayed before approving the pairing of the sensor to the control unit.”). The motivation to integrate the technology of Halperin into the invention of Sato, Halperin, and Jia as modified was to configure a noninvasive system for monitoring a patient’s vitals noninvasively while additionally being able to have a smart system for event detection based on these recorded vitals. This is helpful for the practitioners as the system can be equipped to automatically detect a physiological event and where the practitioner may access this data remotely from a system to be alerted to such an event, or actively notified when an event occurs (Sato ¶0022; ¶0012) (Halperin ¶0745).
Regarding claim 10, Sato combined with Halperin and Jia teaches the limitations of claim 1. Sato further discloses wherein the sensor is not in direct contact with the subject. (Sato ¶0014 “Also, since the heartbeat/respiration sensor of the present invention is configured such that the vibration transmitting plate receives the vital signal emitted from the subject, the heartbeat/respiration sensor need not be necessarily installed and used on a rigid base, unlike the conventional sensor seat and the like. Therefore, the heartbeat/respiration sensor can highly sensitively detect the vital signal even if it is installed on a soft comforter, or even it is wrapped with a towel or the like, or even the subject remains with his/her clothes on.”; ¶0060 “As further applications, heartbeat/respiration sensor 4 can be attached to a driver's seat in a variety of traveling means (car, train, aircraft and the like) to monitor the driver for a health condition, or heartbeat/respiration sensor 4 can be attached to the back of a patient chair in the examination room of a hospital to examine the patient without requiring the patient to take off clothes.”).
Regarding claim 11, Sato discloses receiving, via at least one computing device, real-time seismic sensor data from a seismometer sensor coupled to a structure, the seismic sensor data corresponding to one or more vibrations of the structure (Sato Abstract “Heartbeat/respiration sensor 4 comprises flexible vibration transmitting plate 1 formed with a plurality of air vents 3, and piezoelectric transducer 2 mounted on vibration transmitting plate 1.”; ¶0014; ¶0039; ¶0020; ¶0050) (Sato ¶0034 “IG. 10 is a block diagram illustrating a body monitor which enables a heart rate, respiration rate and the like to be monitored based on a signal generated by the heartbeat/respiration sensor”; ¶0055; ¶0050), a movement of the subject, and a posture of the subject (Sato ¶0057 “Mute signal 18 indicates that the body of the subject has largely mov