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 .
Amendment Entered
This Office action is responsive to the Amendment filed on January 15th, 2026. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 10, 11, 15, and 19, as well as the cancellation of claims 4-5 and 21. Claims 1, 6-11, and 15-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At page 6, Applicant argues that Heanue is directed to sensing bed sores, that it does not disclose automatically performing the calibration process and that there is no reason why the calibration of a bedsore detector would be applied to a system for detecting a patient’s breathing. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although in para. [0010] Heanue discloses a system for sensing bedsores, Heanue discloses in para. [0066] that the photon measurement system is used to measure oximetry in human tissue/noninvasive human cerebral oximetry. The claimed invention, Fothergill, Wong, Johnson, and Heanue are all directed to systems using optical sensors/ spectrophotometry/ spectrometers/ emitters and detectors. Heanue discloses the photon measurement system 100 comprising an optical illumination source 3 (emitter) and optical detector 7 (detector) (fig. 1) and implementing a calibration procedure to measure the instrument response function while sample 5 is removed from the optical path and that the device may automatically take measurements (para. [0078, 0103]). Heanue further discloses once the instrument response function is determined, the temporal transfer characteristic or the temporal point spread function can be derived and the temporal point spread function is separated from the instrument response function and then used as described to obtain
μ
a
and the concentrations of interest and that the measured concentrations can be absolute and accurate, without influence from tissue scattering or variations in optical path length (para. [0071, 0078, 0081]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong and Johnson hereinabove, such that the controller is further adapted to take automatically take calibration readings from the detector when no patient is present on the patient support apparatus, in view of the teachings of Heanue, as this would aid in determining the instrument response function by implementing a calibration procedure, deriving the temporal point spread function, and obtaining absolute and accurate concentrations of interest (Heanue, para. [0071, 0078, 0081]).
At pages 6-7, Applicant argues that nothing in the Kostic reference suggests modifying its force sensors to be used in a patient support apparatus with an automatic calibration process for detecting variations in gas concentrations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The force sensors of Kostic are used to determine a person’s occupancy status. Furthermore, Kostic discloses in para. [0059] that the controller 58 performs particular tasks in response to a detected change in the occupancy status of support deck 30 and that the particular tasks are user-configurable such as turning a light on or off in response to an occupancy change. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong and Johnson hereinabove, such that patient support apparatus comprises a plurality of force sensors adapted to detect a weight of the patient when the patient is positioned on the support surface and such that the controller is adapted to automatically perform particular tasks when no patient is present on the patient support apparatus as determined from the plurality of force sensors and to not perform particular tasks if the patient is present as determined from the plurality of force sensors, in view of the teachings of Kostic, as this would aid in determining the occupant’s wait and automatically performing user-configurable tasks in response to the change in occupancy status by incorporating the force sensors and user-configurable tasks of Kostic.
Furthermore, upon the modification of Fothergill to incorporate the calibration procedure of Heanue, the scale system/force sensors for detecting weight and occupancy status of the occupant of Kostic, and the controller adapted to perform user-configurable tasks of Kostic, as described above, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, further discloses that the controller (“electronic control and display system”, page 30 lines 18-22, fig. 19) is further adapted to not take the calibration readings if patient weight is detected by the plurality of force sensors (“optically absorbing body is placed … intercepts … proportional reduction in detected output”, page 20 lines 22-34 & Kostic, para. [0056-0059]).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “emitter … adapted to emit electromagnetic waves”; “detector … adapted to detect the electromagnetic waves” in claims 1 and 11; “force sensors adapted to detect a weight” in claims 5-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The emitter is defined, in para. [0092, 0099, 0101], as emitters of a spectrometer.
The detector is defined, in para. [0102], as any commercially available sensors that are able to detect a spectrum of the wavelengths emitted; any commercially available sensors used in conventional spectrometers.
The force sensors are defined, in para. [0059], as load cells.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites “a plurality of force sensors adapted to detect a weight of the patient when the patient is positioned on the support surface”. It is unclear if this is referring to the same or is in addition to the plurality of force sensors as recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, it is interpreted as referring to the same plurality of force sensors and the limitation is suggested to recite “the plurality of force sensors adapted to detect the weight of the patient when the patient is positioned on the support surface”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fothergill (WO-9726824-A1) in view of Wong (US 4928703 A), further in view of Johnson (US 20150363566 A1), further in view of Kostic (US 20170128296 A1 – previously cited), and further in view of Heanue (US 20120130257 A1 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Fothergill discloses a patient support apparatus (cot 1, fig. 1, page 20 line 15 -page 21 line 22) comprising: a frame (unlabeled but as seen in fig. 2; “frame beds”, page 38 lines 27-31); a support surface supported on the frame (mattress 11, fig. 2) and adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) support a patient thereon (living body 9 as seen in fig. 2, page 21 lines 1-2); an emitter (emitter 7, figs. 1-2) coupled to a first location (side 3, fig. 1) on the patient support apparatus (as seen in figs. 1-2, page 20 lines 15-26) and adapted to emit electromagnetic waves (“light source … infrared”; “directing radiation”, page 11 line & page 21 lines 23-25); a detector (detector 8, figs. 1-2) coupled to a second location (side 2) on the patient support apparatus (as seen in figs. 1-2, page 20 lines 15-26) and adapted to detect the electromagnetic waves emitted by the emitter (“detected radiation”, page 20 lines 21-34); and a controller (“electronic control and display system”, page 30 lines 18-22, fig. 19). Fothergill further discloses the output signals from the various photodetectors will provide information relating to movements corresponding to breathing and heart beat (page 30 lines 10-17) and that the detector output information may be fed to an oscilloscope for visual display and possible processing or to a computer 43 or microprocessor (page 31 lines 23 – page 32 lines 1-6 and lines 24-29). Fothergill does not expressly disclose the controller adapted to perform a spectral analysis of air in a vicinity of a face of the patient using the electromagnetic waves detected by the detector, to detect variations in a concentration of a particular gas in the air caused by the patient's breathing, to use the variations in the concentration of the particular gas to determine a breathing rate of the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus.
However, Wong directed to Wong directed to an improved respiration rate and apnea monitor discloses a signal processing circuit (signal processing circuit 48, fig. 1) adapted to perform a spectral analysis (“fluctuations in the transmitted radiation are analyzed by a signal processor”, Abstract, see also col. 6 lines 16-38) of air in a vicinity of a face of the patient using the electromagnetic waves (“air … volume 16 in front of the patient … gases exhaled … radiation … CO2”, col. 5 lines 34-64, fig. 1) detected by the detector (“detector 40”, col. 6 lines 16-26, fig. 1), to detect variations in a concentration of a particular gas in the air caused by the patient's breathing (fig. 5, “fluctuations in the infrared radiation due to the absorption caused by the exhalations of the infant”; “concentration of carbon dioxide”, col. 2 lines 15-20 & col. 5 lines 59-64, see also col. 7 lines 45-55), to use the variations in the concentration of the particular gas to determine a breathing rate of the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus (figs. 1 & 5, “collimated beam will vary in step with the patient's breathing … frequency”; “exhalations … frequency of the downwardly sloping segments of the curve 76 are monitored”, Abstract & col. 7 lines 45-61, see also “& “respiration rate/apnea monitor”, col. 2 lines 40-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fothergill such that the controller is adapted to perform a spectral analysis of air in a vicinity of a face of the patient using the electromagnetic waves detected by the detector, to detect variations in a concentration of a particular gas in the air caused by the patient's breathing, to use the variations in the concentration of the particular gas to determine a breathing rate of the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus, in view of the teachings of Wong, for the obvious advantage of providing a non-contact respiration rate and apnea monitor using pulmonary gas exchange techniques.
Fothergill, as modified by Wong, does not disclose a camera adapted to capture images of the patient; a memory in which visual attributes of a component of the patient support apparatus is stored; and the controller adapted use the visual attributes to assist in determining a relative position of the patient's face to the detector.
However, Johnson directed to an healthcare-focused information system 100 (para. [0062-0063], fig. 1) discloses a patient support apparatus (“clinical device”, para. [0119, 0148-0147, 0199], bed 529 comprising optical sensors and a spirometer 527, as seen in fig. 5, para. [0119]); a camera (optical sensor 105, “camera”, para. [0116, 0199-0200]) adapted to capture images of the patient (“detect patient face … optical inputs … images”; “camera … still video … used to monitor patient”, para. [0117, 0119, 0180, 0199-200]); a memory (memory 140; data center 212 comprising database 230, fig. 2) in which visual attributes of a component of the patient support apparatus (orientation and position of the clinical device … determined … data … taken … in combination with camera information, para. [0199]) is stored (“memory 140 … object-oriented database”; “database 230 stores the medical information described herein and provides access thereto”, para. [0067, 0082]); and the controller (“processor 102 … controllers”, para. [0207], fig. 10) adapted use the visual attributes to assist in determining a relative position of the patient's face to a detector (“orientation of the spirometer 705 may be checked against the orientation of the patient's head 730 in X, Y and Z planes 740”; “position and orientation of the clinical device … taken alone or in combination with camera … information … compared … patient’s head … to determine an orientation and position of the clinical device with respect to the patient’s head”, para. [0142, 0151, 0199], figs. 9-10). Johnson further discloses that the system 800 helps to aide in physical orientation and use of clinical device with respect to a patient’s mouth and that use of the device may be tailored by a care provider to a particular patient so as to achieve a measured medical result such as level of blood oxygen or rate of air movement with a patient's lung function (para. [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong hereinabove, such that the patient support apparatus further comprises a camera adapted to capture images of the patient; a memory in which visual attributes of a component of the patient support apparatus is stored; and the controller adapted use the visual attributes to assist in determining a relative position of the patient's face to the detector, in view of the teachings of Johnson, in order to help aide in physical orientation and use of clinical device with respect to the patient’s face such that use of the device may be tailored by a care provider to a particular patient so as to achieve a measured medical result such as level of blood oxygen or rate of air movement with a patient's lung function.
Fothergill, as modified by Wong and Johnson hereinabove, does not disclose that patient support apparatus comprises a plurality of force sensors adapted to detect a weight of the patient when the patient is positioned on the support surface and that the controller is adapted to automatically take calibration readings from the detector when no patient is present on the patient support apparatus as determined from the plurality of force sensors, and to not take calibration readings if the patient is present as determined from the plurality of force sensors.
However, Kostic directed to a person support apparatus 20 having a controller 58 (figs. 1 & 4) discloses that the patient support apparatus (person support apparatus 20, para. [0053]) comprises a plurality of force sensors (“scale system”, plurality of force sensors 56, para. [0043, 0053]) adapted to detect a weight of the patient when the patient is positioned on the support surface (“determine the occupant’s weight”, para. [0043]) and that the controller (controller 58, fig. 4) is adapted to automatically perform particular tasks when no patient is present on the patient support apparatus (“automatically perform one or more tasks in response to an occupancy status change of support deck 30”; “particular tasks … are user-configurable”, para. [0056-0059]) as determined from the plurality of force sensors (“controller 58 is programmed to determine the occupancy status of support deck 30 by also taking into account the outputs from force sensors 56”, para. [0043, 0052-0053]), and to not perform particular tasks if the patient is present (“automatically perform one or more tasks in response to an occupancy status change of support deck 30”; “user-configurable”, para. [0056-0059]) as determined from the plurality of force sensors (“controller 58 is programmed to determine the occupancy status of support deck 30 by also taking into account the outputs from force sensors 56”, para. [0043, 0052-0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong and Johnson hereinabove, such that patient support apparatus comprises a plurality of force sensors adapted to detect a weight of the patient when the patient is positioned on the support surface and such that the controller is adapted to automatically perform particular tasks when no patient is present on the patient support apparatus as determined from the plurality of force sensors and to not take perform particular tasks if the patient is present as determined from the plurality of force sensors, in view of the teachings of Kostic, as this would aid in determining the occupant’s wait and automatically performing user-configurable tasks in response to the change in occupancy status by incorporating the force sensors and user-configurable tasks of Kostic.
Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, and Kostic hereinabove, does not disclose taking calibration readings from the detector when no patient is present on the patient support apparatus.
However, Heanue directed to a photon measurement system 100 comprising an optical illumination source 3 (emitter) and optical detector 7 (detector) (fig. 1) discloses taking calibration readings from the detector when no patient is present (“calibration procedure … instrument response … sample 5 is removed from the optical path”, para. [0078]). Heanue further discloses that the instrument response function can be measured by implementing the calibration procedure, and that once the instrument response function is determined, the temporal transfer characteristic or the temporal point spread function can be derived and the temporal point spread function is separated from the instrument response function and then used as described to obtain
μ
a
and the concentrations of interest and that the measured concentrations can be absolute and accurate, without influence from tissue scattering or variations in optical path length (para. [0071, 0078, 0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong and Johnson hereinabove, such that the controller is adapted to take calibration readings from the detector when no patient is present on the patient support apparatus, in view of the teachings of Heanue, as this would aid in determining the instrument response function, deriving the temporal point spread function, and obtaining absolute and accurate concentrations of interest (Heanue, para. [0071, 0078, 0081]), by implementing the calibration procedure of Heanue as one of the configurable tasks automatically performed in response to the change in occupancy status.
Furthermore, upon the modification of Fothergill to incorporate the calibration procedure of Heanue, the scale system/force sensors for detecting weight and occupancy status of the occupant of Kostic, and the controller adapted to perform user-configurable tasks of Kostic, as described above, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, further discloses that the controller (“electronic control and display system”, page 30 lines 18-22, fig. 19) is further adapted to not take the calibration readings if patient weight is detected by the plurality of force sensors (“optically absorbing body is placed … intercepts … proportional reduction in detected output”, page 20 lines 22-34 & Kostic, para. [0056-0059]).
Regarding claim 9, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first location is a first siderail (side 3, fig. 1) positioned adjacent a first side of the support surface (as seen in figs. 1-2 & 21-23, page 20 lines 15-26), and the second location is a second siderail (side 2, fig. 1) positioned adjacent a second side of the support surface (as seen in figs. 1-2 & 21-23, page 20 lines 15-26) (see also page 38 lines 27-31, “horizontal side frames”).
Regarding claim 11, Fothergill discloses a spectrometer (optical emitter and detector heads 5 and 6, fig. 1, page 20 lines 20-22) adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) be attached to, and communicate with, a patient support apparatus (cot 1) (as seen in figs. 1 & 19), the spectrometer (optical emitter and detector heads 5 and 6, fig. 1) comprising: an emitter (emitter 7, fig. 1) adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) be coupled to a first location on the patient support apparatus (side 3 of cot 1, figs. 1-2) and adapted to emit electromagnetic waves (“radiation”; “LED emitters … infrared”, page 20 lines 20-33 page 24 line 9); a detector (photodetector 8, fig. 1) adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) be coupled to a second location on the patient support apparatus (side 2 of cot 1, figs. 1-2) and adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) detect the electromagnetic waves emitted by the emitter (“intercepted … detected radiation”, page 20 lines 22-34); a transmitter (“communication links”; transfer link 44, page 6 lines 15-17, fig. 19); and a controller (“electronic control and display system”, page 30 lines 18-22, fig. 19), the controller (“electronic control and display system”, page 30 lines 18-22, fig. 19) adapted to perform the following: use the transmitter to send data to a second receiver integrated into the patient support apparatus (computer 43, fig. 19) (page 30 lines 18-28 & page 31 lines 23-29). Fothergill further discloses the output signals from the various photodetectors will provide information relating to movements corresponding to breathing and heart beat (page 30 lines 10-17) and that the detector output information may be fed to an oscilloscope for visual display and possible processing or to a computer 43 or microprocessor (page 31 lines 23 – page 32 lines 1-6 and lines 24-29). Fothergill does not expressly disclose the controller adapted to perform a spectral analysis of air in a vicinity of a face of the patient using the electromagnetic waves detected by the detector, the controller further adapted to detect variations in a concentration of a particular gas in the air caused by the patient's breathing and to use the variations in the concentration of the particular gas to determine a breathing rate of the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus.
However, Wong directed to Wong directed to an improved respiration rate and apnea monitor discloses a signal processing circuit (signal processing circuit 48, fig. 1) adapted to perform the following: perform a spectral analysis (“fluctuations in the transmitted radiation are analyzed by a signal processor”, Abstract, see also col. 6 lines 16-38) of air in a vicinity of a face of the patient using the electromagnetic waves (“air … volume 16 in front of the patient … gases exhaled … radiation … CO2”, col. 5 lines 34-64, fig. 1) detected by the detector (“detector 40”, col. 6 lines 16-26, fig. 1), detect variations in a concentration of a particular gas in the air caused by the patient's breathing (fig. 5, “fluctuations in the infrared radiation due to the absorption caused by the exhalations of the infant”; “concentration of carbon dioxide”, col. 2 lines 15-20 & col. 5 lines 59-64, see also col. 7 lines 45-55); use the variations in the concentration of the particular gas to determine a breathing rate of the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus (figs. 1 & 5, “collimated beam will vary in step with the patient's breathing … frequency”; “exhalations … frequency of the downwardly sloping segments of the curve 76 are monitored”, Abstract & col. 7 lines 45-61, see also “& “respiration rate/apnea monitor”, col. 2 lines 40-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fothergill such that the controller is adapted to perform the following: perform a spectral analysis of air in a vicinity of a face of the patient using the electromagnetic waves detected by the detector; detect variations in a concentration of a particular gas in the air caused by the patient's breathing; use the variations in the concentration of the particular gas to determine a breathing rate of the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus, in view of the teachings of Wong, for the obvious advantage of providing a non-contact respiration rate and apnea monitor using pulmonary gas exchange techniques.
Fothergill, as modified by Wong hereinabove, does not disclose a camera adapted to capture images of the patient; a memory in which visual attributes of a component of the patient support apparatus is stored; and the controller adapted to perform the following: use the visual attributes to assist in determining a relative position of the patient's face to the detector.
However, Johnson directed to an healthcare-focused information system 100 (para. [0062-0063], fig. 1) discloses a patient support apparatus (“clinical device”, para. [0119, 0148-0147, 0199], bed 529 comprising optical sensors and a spirometer 527, as seen in fig. 5, para. [0119]); a camera (optical sensor 105, “camera”, para. [0116, 0199-0200]) adapted to capture images of the patient (“detect patient face … optical inputs … images”; “camera … still video … used to monitor patient”, para. [0117, 0119, 0180, 0199-200]); a memory (memory 140; data center 212 comprising database 230, fig. 2) in which visual attributes of a component of the patient support apparatus (orientation and position of the clinical device … determined … data … taken … in combination with camera information, para. [0199]) is stored (“memory 140 … object-oriented database”; “database 230 stores the medical information described herein and provides access thereto”, para. [0067, 0082]); and the controller (“processor 102 … controllers”, para. [0207], fig. 10) adapted use the visual attributes to assist in determining a relative position of the patient's face to a detector (“orientation of the spirometer 705 may be checked against the orientation of the patient's head 730 in X, Y and Z planes 740”; “position and orientation of the clinical device … taken alone or in combination with camera … information … compared … patient’s head … to determine an orientation and position of the clinical device with respect to the patient’s head”, para. [0142, 0151, 0199], figs. 9-10). Johnson further discloses that the system 800 helps to aide in physical orientation and use of clinical device with respect to a patient’s mouth and that use of the device may be tailored by a care provider to a particular patient so as to achieve a measured medical result such as level of blood oxygen or rate of air movement with a patient's lung function (para. [0151]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong hereinabove, such that the patient support apparatus further comprises a camera adapted to capture images of the patient; a memory in which visual attributes of a component of the patient support apparatus is stored; and the controller adapted to perform the following: use the visual attributes to assist in determining a relative position of the patient's face to the detector, in view of the teachings of Johnson, in order to help aide in physical orientation and use of clinical device with respect to the patient’s face such that use of the device may be tailored by a care provider to a particular patient so as to achieve a measured medical result such as level of blood oxygen or rate of air movement with a patient's lung function.
Fothergill, as modified by Wong and Johnson hereinabove, does not disclose that patient support apparatus comprises a receiver adapted to receive a signal from the patient support apparatus indicating that no patient weight is detected on the patient support apparatus and that the controller is adapted to take calibration readings from the detector when no patient weight is detected on the patient support apparatus and to not take the calibration readings when patient weight is detected by the patient support apparatus.
However, Kostic directed to a person support apparatus 20 having a controller 58 (figs. 1 & 4) discloses that the patient support apparatus (person support apparatus 20, para. [0053]) comprises a receiver (“controller 58”, para. [0052-0054]) adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) receive a signal (“scale system”, plurality of force sensors 56 ; “force data … weight”, para. [0043, 0052-0054]) from the patient support apparatus (person support apparatus 20 comprising force sensors 56, para. [0053]) indicating that whether patient weight or no patient weight is detected on the patient support apparatus (“occupancy status … taking into account outputs from force sensors … detect a total weight”; “absent”, para. [0052-0055]); and that the controller (controller 58, fig. 4) is adapted to automatically perform particular tasks when no patient weight is detected on the patient support apparatus (“controller 58 is programmed to determine the occupancy status of support deck 30 by also taking into account the outputs from force sensors 56”, “automatically perform one or more tasks in response to an occupancy status change of support deck 30”; “particular tasks … are user-configurable”, para. [0043, 0052-0053, 0056-0059]) and to perform particular tasks when patient weight is detected by the patient support apparatus (“controller 58 is programmed to determine the occupancy status of support deck 30 by also taking into account the outputs from force sensors 56”, “automatically perform one or more tasks in response to an occupancy status change of support deck 30”; “user-configurable”, para. [0043, 0052-0053, 0056-0059]) and to not perform particular tasks when patient weight is detected by the patient support apparatus (“controller 58 is programmed to determine the occupancy status of support deck 30 by also taking into account the outputs from force sensors 56”; “automatically perform one or more tasks in response to an occupancy status change of support deck 30”; “user-configurable”, para. [0043, 0052-0053, 0056-0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong and Johnson hereinabove, such that patient support apparatus comprises a receiver adapted to receive a signal from the patient support apparatus indicating that no patient weight is detected on the patient support apparatus and that the controller is adapted to perform particular tasks when no patient weight is detected on the patient support apparatus and to not perform particular tasks when patient weight is detected by the patient support apparatus, in view of the teachings of Kostic, as this would aid in determining the occupant’s wait and automatically performing user-configurable tasks in response to the change in occupancy status by incorporating the force sensors and user-configurable tasks of Kostic.
Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, and Kostic hereinabove, does not disclose taking calibration readings from the detector when no patient weight is detected on the patient support apparatus.
However, Heanue directed to a photon measurement system 100 comprising an optical illumination source 3 (emitter) and optical detector 7 (detector) (fig. 1) discloses taking calibration readings from the detector when no patient is present (“calibration procedure … instrument response … sample 5 is removed from the optical path”, para. [0078]). Heanue further discloses that the instrument response function can be measured by implementing the calibration procedure, and that once the instrument response function is determined, the temporal transfer characteristic or the temporal point spread function can be derived and the temporal point spread function is separated from the instrument response function and then used as described to obtain
μ
a
and the concentrations of interest and that the measured concentrations can be absolute and accurate, without influence from tissue scattering or variations in optical path length (para. [0071, 0078, 0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong and Johnson hereinabove, such that the controller is
adapted to take calibration readings from the detector when no patient weight is detected on the patient support apparatus, in view of the teachings of Heanue, as this would aid in determining the instrument response function, deriving the temporal point spread function, and obtaining absolute and accurate concentrations of interest (Heanue, para. [0071, 0078, 0081]), by implementing the calibration procedure of Heanue, as one of the configurable tasks automatically performed in response to the change in occupancy status.
Furthermore, upon the modification of Fothergill to incorporate the calibration procedure of Heanue, the scale system/force sensors for detecting weight and occupancy status of the occupant of Kostic, and the controller adapted to perform user-configurable tasks of Kostic, as described above, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, further discloses that the controller (“electronic control and display system”, page 30 lines 18-22, fig. 19) is further adapted to not take the calibration readings when patient weight is detected by the patient support apparatus (“optically absorbing body is placed … intercepts … proportional reduction in detected output”, page 20 lines 22-34 & Kostic, para. [0056-0059]).
Regarding claim 17, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, discloses the spectrometer of claim 11, wherein the first location is a first siderail (side 3, fig. 1) positioned adjacent a first side of the patient support apparatus (as seen in figs. 1-2 & 21-23, page 20 lines 15-26), and the second location is a second siderail (side 2, fig. 1) positioned adjacent a second side of the patient support apparatus (as seen in figs. 1-2 & 21-23, page 20 lines 15-26) (see also page 38 lines 27-31, “horizontal side frames”).
Regarding claim 18, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, discloses the spectrometer of claim 17 wherein the detector comprises a plurality of detectors (several detectors 8, fig. 12) adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) be coupled to the second siderail (as seen in figs. 11-12), and wherein the emitter (emitter 7, fig. 12) is adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) change an aim of the electromagnetic waves such that the electromagnetic waves are aimed at different ones of the plurality of detectors at different times (“associated photodetectors … spatially selective”; energising the set of emitters sequentially … a particular detector may be distinguished, page 7 lines 1-13, & page 26 line 28- page 27 line 1), and wherein the electromagnetic waves are infrared waves (infrared, page 27 lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 20, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, discloses the spectrometer of claim 11, wherein the data sent to the patient support apparatus includes at least one of the concentration of the particular gas or a unique identifier of the spectrometer (“concentration of important exhaled gases including CO2 and O2, page 15 lines 9-10).
Claims 6-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fothergill in view of Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mehta (US 20200043592 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 1. Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, does not expressly disclose the patient support apparatus further comprising a plurality of force sensors adapted to detect a weight of the patient when the patient is positioned on the support surface.
However, Kostic discloses the patient support apparatus (patient support apparatus 20, fig. 1) further comprising a plurality of force sensors (load cells/force sensors 56, para. [0050, 0053]) adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) detect a weight of the patient when the patient is positioned on the support surface (“determine the occupant’s weight”, para. [0043]). Kostic further discloses a scale system to determine the weight of the occupant (para. [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, such that the patient support apparatus further comprises a plurality of force sensors adapted to detect a weight of the patient when the patient is positioned on the support surface, in view of the teachings of Kostic, as this would aid in determining the weight of the occupant using a scale system (Kostic, para. [0043]).
Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, does not expressly disclose controller is further adapted to determine a metabolic rate of the patient using the weight of the patient.
However, Mehta discloses the controller (microcontroller, para. [0225]) is further adapted to determine a metabolic rate of the patient using the weight of the patient (para. [0183], variables used to calculate basal metabolic rates in the Harris-Benedict equation are height, weight, age, and sex).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, such that the controller is further adapted to determine a metabolic rate of the patient using the weight of the patient, in view of the teachings of Mehta, as this would aid in determining a basal metabolic rate of the user.
Regarding claim 7, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, Heanue, and Mehta hereinabove, discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 6, and a communications link (“radio … communication”) adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) communicate with a remote server (remote signal processing and recording facility) (page 6 lines 10-17). Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, Heanue, and Mehta hereinabove, does not expressly disclose the patient support apparatus further comprising a transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server.
However, Kostic discloses a transceiver (“transceiver”, para. [0041]) adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) communicate with a remote server (off-board devices 76; “servers”, para. [0041, 0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, Heanue, and Mehta hereinabove, such that the patient support apparatus further comprises a transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server, in view of the teachings of Kostic, for the obvious advantage of providing a wireless communication link to remote servers or computers.
Upon the modification of Fothergill to incorporate the transceiver as described above and the parameter is the metabolic rate as described with respect to claim 6 above, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, Heanue, and Mehta hereinabove, further discloses the controller (“electronic control and display system”, page 30 lines 18-22, fig. 19) is adapted to transmit an alert to the remote server (remote visual or audible alarms activated/visual and audio indication signals generated remotely, page 31 lines 6-9 & page 35 lines 7-11) if the metabolic rate is less than a threshold (physiological parameters fall outside preset safe limits, page 31 lines 6-9).
Regarding claim 15, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, discloses the spectrometer of claim 11 comprising the first receiver (computer 43, fig. 19). Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is further adapted to use the weight of the patient to determine a metabolic rate of the patient.
However, Mehta discloses that the controller (microcontroller, para. [0225]) is further adapted to use the weight of the patient to determine a metabolic rate (para. [0183], variables used to calculate basal metabolic rates in the Harris-Benedict equation are height, weight, age, and sex).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, such that the controller is further adapted to use the weight of the patient to determine a metabolic rate of the patient, in view of the teachings of Mehta, as this would aid in determining a basal metabolic rate of the user.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fothergill in view of Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bodurka (US 20190150737 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 1 and the controller is adapted to transmit the concentration of the particular gas to a remote server (physiological data … transmitted … to remote locations; concentration of important exhaled gases including CO2, page 6 lines 5-17 & page 15 lines 9-10). Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, does not expressly disclose the patient support apparatus further comprising a location receiver adapted to receive a location ID from a fixed locator unit positioned within a healthcare facility in which the patient support apparatus is located, the location receiver adapted to receive the location ID when the patient support apparatus is positioned adjacent the fixed locator unit, and wherein the location ID is sent from the fixed locator unit to the location receiver via infrared waves, and the controller is adapted to transmit the location ID and the concentration of the particular gas to a remote server.
However, Bodurka discloses the patient support apparatus further comprising a location receiver (transceiver 90, para. [0080]) adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) receive a location ID (“unique identifier”; “location”, para. [0080]) from a fixed locator unit (headwall interface 72/first wall unit 68, para. [0080]) positioned within a healthcare facility in which the patient support apparatus is located (as seen in fig. 2, para. [0080]), the location receiver (transceiver 90, para. [0080]) adapted to (Examiner’s Note: functional language, i.e., capable of) receive the location ID when the patient support apparatus is positioned adjacent the fixed locator unit (“adjacent”, para. [0078, 0080]), and wherein the location ID is sent from the fixed locator unit (headwall interface 72/first wall unit 68, para. [0080]) to the location receiver (transceiver 90, para. [0080]) via infrared waves (infrared communication link 116, para. [0081), and the controller (controller 96, para. [0080]) is adapted to transmit the location ID to a remote server (location is sent to location server 110a or other servers … on computer network 106, para. [0080]). location server 110a that is adapted to monitor and record the current locations of patient support apparatuses 20 within the healthcare facility (para. [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, such that the patient support apparatus further comprises a location receiver adapted to receive a location ID from a fixed locator unit positioned within a healthcare facility in which the patient support apparatus is located, the location receiver adapted to receive the location ID when the patient support apparatus is positioned adjacent the fixed locator unit, and wherein the location ID is sent from the fixed locator unit to the location receiver via infrared waves, and the controller is adapted to transmit the location ID and the concentration of the particular gas to a remote server, in view of the teachings of Bodurka, as this would aid in monitoring and recording the current location of the patient support apparatus within the healthcare facility.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fothergill in view of Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Scampoli (US 20200271574 A1).
Regarding claim 10, upon the modification of Fothergill to implement a calibration procedure, as described with respect to claim 1 above, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller (“electronic control and display system”, page 30 lines 18-22, fig. 19) is adapted to determine a baseline level from the calibration reading (“output signal level … maximum and constant”, page 20 lines 25-28). Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, does not expressly disclose determining a baseline level of carbon dioxide in a sample of air near the patient support apparatus from the calibration readings, and the controller is further adapted to use the baseline level of carbon dioxide in the air sample to determine a level of carbon dioxide exhaled by the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus.
However, Scampoli discloses determining a baseline level of carbon dioxide in a sample of air near the patient support apparatus (carbon dioxide gas detector system; IR reference signal 214, para. [0073, 0081]), and the controller (controller 210, para. [0081]) is further adapted to use the baseline level of carbon dioxide in the air sample to determine a level of carbon dioxide exhaled by the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus (“controller 210 processes signals 212, 214, and 234 … outputs the carbon dioxide value”; “compensating for drift of the IR signal”, fig. 6, para. [0081, 0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, such that the controller is further adapted to determine a baseline level of carbon dioxide in a sample of air near the patient support apparatus from the calibration readings, and the controller is further adapted to use the baseline level of carbon dioxide in the air sample to determine a level of carbon dioxide exhaled by the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus, in view of the teachings of Scampoli, as this would aid in compensating IR signals for drift and output a carbon dioxide value (para. [0081, 0085]).
Regarding claim 19, upon the modification of Fothergill to implement a calibration procedure, as described with respect to claim 11 above, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, discloses the spectrometer of claim 11 wherein the controller (“electronic control and display system”, page 30 lines 18-22, fig. 19) is adapted to determine a baseline level from the calibration readings (“output signal level … maximum and constant”, page 20 lines 25-28). Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, does not expressly disclose determining a baseline level of carbon dioxide in a sample of air near the patient support apparatus from the calibration readings, and the controller is further adapted to use the baseline level of carbon dioxide in the air sample to determine a level of carbon dioxide exhaled by the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus.
However, Scampoli discloses determining a baseline level of carbon dioxide in a sample of air near the patient support apparatus (carbon dioxide gas detector system; IR reference signal 214, para. [0073, 0081]), and to use the baseline level of carbon dioxide in the air sample to determine a level of carbon dioxide exhaled by the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus (“controller 210 processes signals 212, 214, and 234 … outputs the carbon dioxide value”; “compensating for drift of the IR signal”, fig. 6, para. [0081, 0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, such that the controller is further adapted to determine a baseline level of carbon dioxide in a sample of air near the patient support apparatus from the calibration readings, and to use the baseline level of carbon dioxide in the air sample to determine a level of carbon dioxide exhaled by the patient when the patient is positioned on the patient support apparatus, in view of the teachings of Scampoli, as this would aid in compensating IR signals for drift and output a carbon dioxide value (para. [0081, 0085]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fothergill in view of Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue, as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Wang (US 20110249791 A1), and further in view of Heller.
Regarding claim 16, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, discloses the spectrometer of claim 11 wherein the detector comprises a plurality of detectors (several detectors 8, fig. 12). Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is further adapted to select at least one of the plurality of detectors based on a relative position of the patient's face to the detector, and wherein the controller is further adapted to perform the spectral analysis on the electromagnetic waves detected by the selected at least one of the detectors.
However, Wang directed an apparatus 60 having configurable AEC apparatus 40 for sensing the level of ionizing radiation (figs. 3A & 8) discloses a controller (“AEC controller circuit 72, control logic circuit 70 … single hardware component”, para. [0066] figs. 3A & 8), wherein the controller is further adapted to select at least one of the plurality of detectors based on a relative position of the patient to the detector (“determining which AEC sensor elements should be enabled … generate positional coordinates step S116 then generates the needed positional coordinates for indicating the portion of the subject that is to be exposed to radiation and for defining one or more radiation measurement areas … configuration of AEC sensors”, para. [0075], as seen in fig. 2C). Wang further discloses that advantageously, methods and apparatus of the present invention provide an arrangement of exposure sensor elements that allows their individual addressing, enablement, and grouping, thereby allowing configuration of sensors to suit the conditions of each particular x-ray exam (para. [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, and Heanue hereinabove, such that the controller is further adapted to select at least one of the plurality of detectors based on a relative position of the patient to the detector, in view of the teachings of Wang, as this would aid in allowing configuration of sensors to suit the conditions of each particular exam by providing an arrangement of exposure sensor elements that allows their individual addressing, enablement, and grouping, thereby.
Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, Heanue, and Wang hereinabove, does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is further adapted to select at least one of the plurality of detectors based on a relative position of the patient's face to the detector, and wherein the controller is further adapted to perform the spectral analysis on the electromagnetic waves detected by the selected at least one of the detectors.
However, Heller discloses a relative position of the patient’s face to the detector (position of the face determined; display monitor 330 indicating the position … sensor is incident upon a desired region of his face, para. [0033-0034, 0038]). Heller further discloses that using empirical facial thermal signatures and patterns, the system can orient the heat sensor 30 to receive thermal radiation from preferred areas of the facial region (para. [0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, Heanue, and Wang hereinabove, such that the controller is further adapted to select at least one of the plurality of detectors based on a relative position of the patient's face to the detector, in view of the teachings of Heller, as this would aid in determining the position of the face such that the system can receive radiation from preferred areas of the facial region (Heller, para. [0033-0034, 0038]).
Upon the modification of Fothergill to select at least one of the plurality of detectors based on a relative position of the patient's face to the detector, as described above, Fothergill, as modified by Wong, Johnson, Kostic, Heanue, Wang, and Heller hereinabove, discloses wherein the controller (“processor”, para. [0064]) is further adapted to perform the spectral analysis on the electromagnetic waves detected by the selected at least one of the detectors (“associated photodetectors … processed”, “signal processing”, page 6 line 29- page 7 line 15 & page 34 lines 11-18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Spahn (US 20060188063 A1) directed to an x-ray system having a radiation source and a digital solid-state image detector and initiating the acquisition of calibration data when no person is present based on detecting the presence of a person using an optical sensor (para. [0009-0010])
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 ANDREW ELI HOFFPAUIR whose telephone number is (571)272-4522. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/A.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/AURELIE H TU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights