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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 02 March 2026. Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-15, 17, and 18 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 11, 17, and 18.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 11-15, 17, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1: “the respiration” should apparently read --respiration--.
In claim 1, line 4: “entire load” should apparently read --an entire load--.
In claim 1, line 5 (two instances): “the load cells” should apparently read --the plurality of load cells--.
In claim 1, lines 7-8: “patient’s ballistocardigraphic heart rate” should apparently read --the patient’s ballistocardigraphic heart rate-- or --a ballistocardigraphic heart rate of the patient--.
In claim 1, line 8: “patient’s weight” should apparently read --the patient’s weight-- or --a weight of the patient--.
In claim 1, line 10: “the combined signals” should apparently read --combined signals--.
In claim 1, line 11: “the importance” should apparently read --an importance--.
In claim 1, line 12: “movement” should apparently read --the movement--.
In claim 1, line 16: the comma following “mass” should apparently be deleted.
In claim 1, line 19: “the subject” should apparently read --the patient--.
In claim 1, lines 20-21: “the tidal volume” should apparently read --the continuous tidal volume--.
In claim 2, line 2: “determine” should apparently read --determining--.
In claim 6, line 2: “a model” should apparently read --the model--.
In claim 6, line 2: “the feature” should apparently read --a feature--.
In claim 6, line 3: “patient’s rib cage” should apparently read --the patient’s rib cage-- or --a rib cage of the patient--.
In claim 6, line 3: “the dorso-ventral direction” should apparently read --a dorso-ventral direction--.
In claim 9, line 2: “a model” should apparently read --the model--.
In claim 9, line 2: “the feature” should apparently read --a feature--.
In claim 9, line 3: “patient’s rib cage” should apparently read --the patient’s rib cage-- or --a rib cage of the patient--.
In claim 9, line 3: “the dorso-ventral direction” should apparently read --a dorso-ventral direction--.
In claim 9, line 4: “movement” should apparently read --the movement--.
In claim 9, line 5: “accuracy” should apparently read --the accuracy--.
In claim 11, line 6 (two instances): “the load cells” should apparently read --the plurality of load cells--.
In claim 11, line 10: “the load cells” should apparently read --the plurality of load cells--.
In claim 11, line 11: “a patient’s center of mass” should apparently read --the patient’s center of mass--.
In claim 11, line 12: “the movement” should apparently read --movement-- or --a movement--.
In claim 11, line 13: “the combined signals” should apparently read --combined signals--.
In claim 11, line 13: “the load cells” should apparently read --the plurality of load cells--.
In claim 11, line 16: “the importance” should apparently read --an importance--.
In claim 12, line 4: “mass, determine” should apparently read --mass to determine--.
In claim 13, line 4: “the real time tidal volume” should apparently read --a real time tidal volume-- or --the continuous tidal volume--.
In claim 13, line 5: “the values” should apparently read --the real time tidal volume and the real time respiration rate-- or --the continuous tidal volume and the real time respiration rate--.
In claim 13, lines 5-6: “a respective pre-determined limit” should apparently read --the pre-determined threshold--.
In claim 14, line 2: “the model for the patient support apparatus” should apparently read --the trained model--.
In claim 14, lines 2-3: “patient’s ballistocardigraphic heart rate” should apparently read --the patient’s ballistocardigraphic heart rate-- or --a ballistocardigraphic heart rate of the patient--.
In claim 14, line 3: “patient’s weight” should apparently read --the patient’s weight-- or --a weight of the patient--.
In claim 14, line 3: “movement” should apparently read --the movement--.
In claim 14, line 4: “accuracy” should apparently read --the accuracy--.
In claim 15, lines 2-3 should apparently be deleted, such that claim 15 reads --The patient support apparatus of claim 12, wherein the trained model--.
In claim 15, line 4: “the model for the patient support apparatus” should apparently read --the trained model--.
In claim 15, lines 4-5: “the dorso-ventral direction” should apparently read --a dorso-ventral direction--.
In claim 15, line 5: “accuracy” should apparently read --the accuracy--.
In claim 17, line 1: “The patient support apparatus of claim 1” should apparently read --The method of claim 1--.
In claim 17, line 2: “the load cells” should apparently read --the plurality of load cells--.
In claim 18, line 2: “the load cells” should apparently read --the plurality of load cells--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-3, 6, 9, 11-15, 17, and 18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a patient" in line 4. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the same patient recited in line 1 or to a separate patient. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the patient--.
Claims 2, 3, 6, and 9 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a weigh frame" in line 4. It is not clear if this is intended to refer to the same weigh frame recited in line 3 or to a separate frame. If the former is intended, the limitation should read --the weigh frame--.
Claim 11 recites the limitations "the entire load," “the patient,” and “the upper frame” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the respective load cell” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the respective load cell” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-15, 17, and 18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11-15, 17, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while it is known in the prior art to use a plurality of load cells positioned on a weigh frame to determine a respiratory rate (e.g., U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0135635 A1), none of the prior art of record teaches or reasonably suggests such a method or apparatus that determines a continuous tidal volume of a patient by using movement of the patient’s center of mass, using the movement in three axes determined from combined signals of a plurality of load cells, an importance of each axis depending on the patient’s postures, applying a trained model to improve accuracy of a characterization of the movement, and communicating the continuous tidal volume to a caregiver.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THADDEUS B COX whose telephone number is (571)270-5132. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/THADDEUS B COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights