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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 22, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Argument
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to pending claims 52-70 filed on August 22, 202 have been fully considered. Examiners response to the applicant’s argument follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claim 52, Applicant argues that Carletti in view of Kentley-Klay do not teach the feature of “determining a type of the patient transport apparatus: and determining if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type.”
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Carletti discloses recognizing an approaching wheeled stretcher (abstract, ¶0004). Carletti further discloses a camera 134 mounted such as on roof 138 of the emergency vehicle 100 as illustrated in Figs. 1-3, capturing the image of a stretcher 106 and displaying the captured image on a display to an operator (Carletti: ¶0033, 0036).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “detecting if the captured image contains at least one person… determining if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type” can be performed by the operator (human) looking at the displayed image captured by the camera mounted on the emergency vehicle of Carletti, in order to determine the safety of the passenger.
Moreover, Kentley-Kla discloses detecting the three-dimensional location and orientation of the head and/or body of the passenger, a child car seat, or the like. (Kentley-Kla: col. 6, lines 46-55). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carletti using an object detection and an image analyses method of Kentley-Kla to arrive at the claimed invention of “determining if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type” to achieve a predictable result of improving the safety of the passengers of the vehicle, as taught by Kentley-Kla (col. 9, lines 32-34). Accordingly, the rejection of the claim is maintained.
The rejection of the independent claim 63 is maintained due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 52.
The pending claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 in view of a new analysis of the subject matter eligibility of the claims. See the rejection 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.
Claim 52-70 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 52 recites “[a] method for determining patient safety, the method comprising: capturing an image of an area associated with a vehicle; analysing the captured image; detecting if the captured image contains at least one person and a patient transport apparatus; determining a type of the patient transport apparatus: and determining if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type.”
The claim involves a series of analysis and comparison steps:
Analyzing of the captured image: This is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Detecting if the image contains at least one person and a patient transport apparatus: This is a mental process of observing and recognizing objects.
Determining if a person is correctly harnessed/positioned according to a predefined protocol: This is a method of organizing human activity. The claim is essentially a method of comparing a captured image to a known set of rules to determine compliance.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites an additional element of “capturing an image of an area associated with a vehicle”. The additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not improve the image capturing or analysis technology itself.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of “capturing an image of an area associated with a vehicle” is insignificant extra-solution activity which is well-known, and do not amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 63 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 63 recites “[a]n apparatus for determining patient safety, the apparatus comprising: a processor; an image capture device for capturing an image of an area associated with a vehicle; a memory storage device including program code that when executed by the processor causes the apparatus to: detect if the captured images contain both at least one person and a patient transport apparatus; determine a type of the patient transport apparatus; and analyze the captured image to determine if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type.”
The claim involves a series of analysis and comparison steps:
Analyzing of the captured image: This is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind.
Detecting if the image contains at least one person and a patient transport apparatus: This is a mental process of observing and recognizing objects.
Determining if a person is correctly harnessed/positioned according to a predefined protocol: This is a method of organizing human activity. The claim is essentially a method of comparing a captured image to a known set of rules to determine compliance.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim recites additional elements of “a processor”, “an image capture device for capturing an image of an area associated with a vehicle” and “a memory storage device including program code.” The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of an image analysis and comparison) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental process by a human using the computer components as a tool, with no change to the computer and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform comparing a captured image to a known set of rules to determine compliance amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 53-62 and 64-70 are rejected based on their dependency from the rejected claims 52 and 63.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 52-59, 63-68 and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carletti (US 20170202715 A1) in view of a previously cited prior art Kentley-Klay (US 11393238 B1).
Regarding claim 52, Carletti discloses a method for determining patient safety, the method comprising: capturing an image of an area associated with a vehicle (Figs. 1-7, ¶0033: camera 134 captures images of the targets 136); analysing the captured image (¶0033: analyzes images from the camera 134); detecting if the captured image contains a patient transport apparatus; determining a type of the patient transport apparatus (abstract, ¶0004: recognizing an approaching wheeled stretcher).
Carletti further discloses a camera 134 mounted such as on roof 138 of the emergency vehicle 100 as illustrated in Figs. 1-3, capturing the image of a stretcher 106 and displaying the captured image on a display to an operator (Carletti: ¶0033, 0036).
Carletti does not explicitly disclose detecting if the captured image contains at least one person, determining if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “detecting if the captured image contains at least one person…determining if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type” can be performed by the operator (human) looking at the displayed image captured by the camera mounted on the emergency vehicle of Carletti, in order to determine the safety of the passenger.
Moreover, Kentley-Kla discloses detecting if the captured image contains at least one person (col. 6, lines 46-55: detecting the three-dimensional location and orientation of the head and/or body of the passenger, a child car seat, or the like). Kentley-Kla further discloses analyzing an image data to determine if the image data represents at least the passengers in child car seats, that the child car seats are positioned in the seating area in an expected position and orientation, that the seat belts are positioned on/over/through the child car seat at an expected location, or other visual indications that the child car seats are properly secured in the vehicle and/or that the passengers are properly secured in the child car seats (Kentley-Kla: col. 8, lines 13-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carletti using an object detection and an image analyses method of Kentley-Kla to arrive at the claimed invention of “determining if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type” to achieve a predictable result of improving the safety of the passengers of the vehicle, as taught by Kentley-Kla (col. 9, lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 53, Carletti discloses selectively controlling a locking mechanism of the vehicle (¶0047, Fig. 11: step 1140: the loading platform 104 retracted back into the bay 105) in response to the captured image containing the person on the patient transport apparatus correctly harnessed according to a predefined protocol and/or correctly positioned according to a predefined protocol, and the captured image containing an authorised person (Fig. 11, Steps 1110-1135).
Regarding claim 54, Carletti discloses controlling a parameter of the vehicle in response to the determined type, wherein at least a first predefined protocol is selected for use in response to determining the type of the patient transport apparatus (¶0033: The controller 114 analyzes images from the camera 134 and adjusts the height h of the upper support surface 116 to the same relative height of the targets 136 on wheeled stretcher 106, i.e., to height h.sub.d visually detected by camera 134. ¶0034: the height h is a predetermined height, such as set in memory 132 (FIG. 4) of the controller 114 to a value selected from the range of 0.4 meters (about 15 inches) to 1 meter (about 39 inches)).
Regarding claim 55, Carletti discloses determining if the patient transport apparatus is at least one of a stretcher, a wheelchair and a dolly, and further comprising determining a type of the stretcher, a type of the wheelchair and a type of the dolly (abstract, ¶0004: controller recognizes an approaching wheeled stretcher. ¶0035, 0046: detecting the height of the stretcher).
Regarding claim 56, Carletti discloses extending a ramp from the vehicle or lowering a lift from the vehicle to facilitate access of the patient transport apparatus to the vehicle (¶0022: vehicle 100 is provided with an alignment system 102 that positions and orientates a loading platform 104 to facilitate the loading and unloading of a wheeled stretcher 106 thereon… the loading platform 104 may move with six degrees of freedom, i.e., translate (forward/backward) along the X axis, laterally (side to side) along the Y axis, and vertically (up/down) along the Z axis, as well as rotate about the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, i.e., roll, pitch, and yaw, respectively, all relative to its base 108) in response to at least one of:
I) the captured image containing the person on the patient transport apparatus correctly positioned according to a predefined protocol; II) the captured image containing the person on the patient transport apparatus correctly harnessed according to a predefined protocol; III) determining the type of the patient transport apparatus (abstract, ¶0004: controller recognizes an approaching wheeled stretcher, and aligns automatically the loading platform with a leading edge of the approaching wheeled stretcher to compensate automatically for any alignment issues between the loading platform and loading wheels (130) of the wheeled stretcher).
Regarding claim 57, Carletti discloses determining if the patient transport apparatus is correctly secured on at least one of a vehicle lift and a vehicle ramp according to a predefined protocol (¶0031-0033: adjusting the position of the alignment system 104 in order to properly center the stretcher 106).
Regarding claim 58, Carletti discloses determining if the patient transport apparatus is correctly secured in the interior of the vehicle according to a predefined protocol (¶0031-0033: automatic alignment of the loading platform 104 with loading wheels 130 of the stretcher 106. The controller 114 determines, through optical detection, the position of the loading wheels 130 of the stretcher 106).
Regarding claim 59, Carletti discloses providing a notification to a user of the vehicle in response to at least one of. i) determining if the person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed according to a predefined protocol; ii) determining if the person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly positioned according to a predefined protocol; iii) determining if the patient transport apparatus is correctly secured on the vehicle lift according to a predefined protocol; iv) determining if the patient transport apparatus is correctly secured on the vehicle ramp according to a predefined protocol; and v) determining if the patient transport apparatus is correctly secured in the interior of the vehicle according to a predefined protocol (¶0040, 0055: the controller 114 of the alignment system 102 detects, via input from one of it sensors/feedback devices, a particular condition that avoids positioning and/or orientating the loading platform properly with the target 136, the visual indicator 172 (upon a communication signal from controller 114 to processor 164) will illuminate with a second color, e.g., the color red, to indicate such a condition to the operator).
Regarding claim 63, Carletti discloses an apparatus for determining patient safety, the apparatus comprising:
a processor (¶0026: controller 114); an image capture device for capturing an image of an area associated with a vehicle (Figs. 1-7, ¶0033: camera 134 captures images of the targets 136); a memory storage device including program code that when executed by the processor causes the apparatus to: detect if the captured images contain a patient transport apparatus; determine a type of the patient transport apparatus (abstract, ¶0004, 0044: the alignment system may recognize an approaching wheeled stretcher); and analyze the captured image (¶0033: controller 114 analyzes images from the camera 134).
Carletti further discloses a camera 134 mounted on such as roof 138 of the emergency vehicle 100 as illustrated in Figs. 1-3, capturing the image of a stretcher 106 and displaying the captured image on a display to an operator (Carletti: ¶0033, 0036).
Carletti does not explicitly disclose detecting if the captured image contains at least one person, determining if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that “detecting if the captured image contains at least one person… determining if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type” can be performed by the operator (human) looking at the displayed image captured by the camera mounted on the emergency vehicle of Carletti, in order to enhance the safety of the passenger.
Moreover, Kentley-Kla discloses detecting if the captured image contains at least one person (col. 6, lines 46-55: detecting the three-dimensional location and orientation of the head and/or body of the passenger, a child car seat, or the like). Kentley-Kla further discloses analyzing an image data to determine if the image data represents at least the passengers in child car seats, that the child car seats are positioned in the seating area in an expected position and orientation, that the seat belts are positioned on/over/through the child car seat at an expected location, or other visual indications that the child car seats are properly secured in the vehicle and/or that the passengers are properly secured in the child car seats (Kentley-Kla: col. 8, lines 13-24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carletti using an object detection and an image analyses method of Kentley-Kla to arrive at the claimed invention of “determining if a person on the patient transport apparatus is correctly harnessed to the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type and/or correctly positioned on the patient transport apparatus according to a predefined protocol based at least in part on the determined type” to achieve a predictable result of improving the safety of the passengers within the vehicle as taught by Kentley-Kla (col. 9, lines 32-34).
Regarding claim 64, Carletti discloses a control means for selectively controlling a locking mechanism of the vehicle (¶0047, Fig. 11: step 1140: the loading platform 104 retracted back into the bay 105) in response to the captured image containing one or both of: the person on the patient transport apparatus correctly harnessed according to a predefined protocol and/or correctly positioned according to a predefined protocol, and the captured image containing at least one authorised person and the patient transport apparatus (Fig. 11, Steps 1110-1135).
Regarding claim 65, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 55, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 55.
Regarding claim 66, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 56, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 56.
Regarding claim 67, the claim is drawn to an apparatus claim and recites the limitation analogous to claims 57-58, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claims 57-58.
Regarding claim 68, Carletti discloses a memory for storing at least a first predefined protocol for harnessing and/or positioning a person on the patient transport apparatus (¶0033: The controller 114 analyzes images from the camera 134 and adjusts the height h of the upper support surface 116 to the same relative height of the targets 136 on wheeled stretcher 106, i.e., to height h.sub.d visually detected by camera 134. ¶0034: the height h is a predetermined height, such as set in memory 132 (FIG. 4) of the controller 114 to a value selected from the range of 0.4 meters (about 15 inches) to 1 meter (about 39 inches)).
Regarding claim 70, Carletti discloses a notification means configured for providing at least one of an audio and a visual notification (¶0040, 0055: the controller 114 of the alignment system 102 detects, via input from one of it sensors/feedback devices, a particular condition that avoids positioning and/or orientating the loading platform properly with the target 136, the visual indicator 172 (upon a communication signal from controller 114 to processor 164) will illuminate with a second color, e.g., the color red, to indicate such a condition to the operator).
Claim(s) 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carletti (US 20170202715 A1) in view of Kentley-Klay (US 11393238 B1) as applied to claim 52, further in view of Honda et al. (US 20200262326 A1).
Regarding claim 60, Carletti in view of Kentley-Klay do not explicitly disclose selectively controlling at least one parameter of the vehicle in response to detecting both of the at least one authorised personnel and the patient transport apparatus approaching the vicinity of the vehicle, wherein the at least one parameter is an environmental parameter.
However, Honda discloses selectively controlling at least one parameter of the vehicle in response to detecting both of the at least one authorised personnel and the patient transport apparatus approaching the vicinity of the vehicle, wherein the at least one parameter is an environmental parameter (Figs. 1-5: ¶0028-0029: detecting the state of the outside of the vehicle 1 by recognizing an image based on a video signal Vo input from the out-vehicle camera 22. The state of the outside of the vehicle 1 is, for example, whether or not a person present outside the vehicle 1 is the regular user. ¶0051: it is assumed that the presence of a wheelchair O1 outside the vehicle 1 has been detected and the wheelchair O1 is a boarding assistance target moving on the slope 9 and moving to the floor 7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carletti in view of Kentley-Klay by utilizing the teaching of Honda in order to obtain a vehicular boarding assistance device and method capable of forming a slope for boarding assistance (Honda: 0002).
Claim(s) 61, 62 and 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carletti (US 20170202715 A1) in view of Kentley-Klay (US 11393238 B1) as applied to claims 52 and 63, and further in view of Kuehnle et al. (US 20190147262 A1).
Regarding claim 61, Carletti in view of Kentley-Klay does not explicitly disclose maintaining a log in memory each time the predefined protocol was breached.
However, Kuehnle discloses maintaining a log in memory each time the predefined protocol was breached (¶0148: Data relating to the type of non-wearing is stored locally and/or transmitted to the central fleet management server, along with a photograph of the non-wearing person or persons in the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carletti in view of Kentley-Klay by utilizing the teaching of Kuehnle in order to enhance the safety and improving overall performance the vehicular fleet (Kuehnle : ¶0010).
Regarding claim 62, Carletti in view of Kentley-Klay does not explicitly disclose maintaining a log in memory each time the predefined protocol was breached, wherein the log in memory is associated with a user profile of one or more authorised personnel.
However, Kuehnle discloses maintaining a log in memory each time the predefined protocol was breached, wherein the log in memory is associated with a user profile of one or more authorised personnel (¶0119, ¶0144: an image in the stored sets and the DFC image patch corresponding to where the buckle may be leads the system of the embodiment to conclude that the driver is wearing, or not, her seatbelt. ¶0148: Data relating to the type of non-wearing is stored locally and/or transmitted to the central fleet management server, along with a photograph of the non-wearing person or persons in the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carletti in view of Kentley-Klay by utilizing the teaching of Kuehnle in order to enhancing the safety and improving overall performance the vehicular fleet (Kuehnle : ¶0010).
Regarding claim 69, Carletti in view of Kentley-Klay does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing means is further configured to generate a report to be transmitted wirelessly, via a wireless communication means, to at least one of a remote server and a remote database, wherein the report contains at least one of synchronously recorded data, harnessing protocol adherence, positioning protocol adherence and fluid spillage.
However, Kuehnle disclose wherein the processing means is further configured to generate a report to be transmitted wirelessly, via a wireless communication means, to at least one of a remote server and a remote database, wherein the report contains at least one of synchronously recorded data, harnessing protocol adherence, positioning protocol adherence and fluid spillage (¶0148: Data relating to the type of non-wearing is stored locally and/or transmitted to the central fleet management server, along with a photograph of the non-wearing person or persons in the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Carletti in view of Kentley-Klay by utilizing the teaching of Kuehnle, in order to enhance the safety and improving overall performance the vehicular fleet (Kuehnle: ¶0010).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488