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 .
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.
No claim limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 11: “an” should be inserted before “external”;
in claim 1, line 11: “a” should be inserted before “presence”;
in claim 12, line 6: “an” should be inserted before “external”;
in claim 12, line 7: “a” should be inserted before “presence”;
in claim 15, line 11: “a” should be inserted before “presence”;
in claim 15, line 11: “an” should be inserted before “external”;
in claim 15, line 12: “a” should be inserted before “presence”; and
in claim 15, line 15: “the presence of” should be inserted before “the external load”.
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, 3-5, 8-15, and 17-24 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 control system operable to detect an external load including external personnel load by determining presence of external energy corrupting a closed system of the patient support apparatus” in lines 10-12, but it is not clear what, if any, of the structural components are used so that the control system can make this detection. Is it the controller? Also, it is not clear what input is being utilized such that the control system can make this detection. These issues render claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the controller is operable to determine the motion is non-patient movement when the control system detects the external load” in lines 15-16, but this recitation seems to contradict the recitation “the controller further operable to process the signals to determine any motion as patient movement or non-patient movement” in lines 12-14 since the recitation in lines 15-16 does not rely upon the signals from the load cells and the air pressure sensors. Rather, claim 1 only recites “the control system operable to detect an external load including external personnel load by determining presence of external energy corrupting a closed system of the patient support apparatus” in lines 10-12, but does not make it clear that this detection is the result of any of the signals from the load cells and the air pressure sensors. This contradiction renders claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “a closed system of the patient support apparatus” in line 12, but it is not clear if this closed system is the same as, related to, or different from the load cells, the frame, the mattress, the air pressure sensors, and the control system or any particular combination thereof. Clarification is required.
Claims 3-5 and 8-11 are rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “a closed system of the patient support apparatus” in line 7-8, but it is not clear if this closed system is the same as, related to, or different from the patient support surface, the load cells, the air pressure sensors, and the controller or any particular combination thereof. Clarification is required.
Related to the above, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the patient support apparatus” in claim 12.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the non-patient movement is determined by the controller when the external load is detected” in lines 12-13, but this recitation seems to contradict the recitation “a controller…operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors, to process the signals to determine a mobility score of the patient, wherein the mobility score of the patient is characterized by non-patient movement and patient movement” in lines 6-12 since the recitation in lines 12-13 does not rely upon the signals from the load cells and the air pressure sensors. That is, if non-patient movement is determined by the existence of the external load, how does this determination factor into the mobility score (which is processed from the signals of the load cells and air pressure sensors and characterized by non-patient movement) when this external load is not recited as being processed from the same signals of the load cells and air pressure sensors. The interaction between these two recitations with respect to the non-patient movement, the mobility score, and the signals from the load cells and the air pressure sensors is not clear, which renders claim 12 indefinite.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the non-patient movement is determined by the controller when the external load is detected” in lines 12-13, but it is not clear what input is being utilized such that the control system can make this detection. This issue renders claim 12 indefinite.
Claims 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 12.
Claim 15 recites “a closed system of the patient support apparatus” in line 12, but it is not clear if this closed system is the same as, related to, or different from the mattress, the pressure sensors, and the load cells, or any particular combination thereof. Clarification is required.
Claims 17-24 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 12-13, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0259248 (Receveur)(previously cited), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0310045 (Hoffman)(previously cited).
Receveur teaches a patient support apparatus comprising: a plurality of load cells (the load cells located at each of the four corners of the person support apparatus 10; paragraphs 0077 and 0101 of Receveur), a frame (the frame 20 of Receveur), a mattress (the mattress 52 of Receveur) including a plurality of inflatable zones (the inflatable zones 712, 714, and 716 of Receveur), a plurality of air pressure sensors (the pressure sensors 720, 722, 724 configured to measure the internal fluid pressure in the zones 712, 714, 716 or individual bladders thereof; paragraph 0099 of Receveur), and a control system including a controller (the control system 730 of Receveur), the controller operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors to monitor energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the air pressure sensors, and the controller is further operable to process the signals to predict, a mobility score for the patient (step 810 of Receveur processes the load cell data and steps 812-828 of Receveur processes the pressure sensor data to determine the mobility score). The operation of the system of Receveur relies, in part, on the changes in the weight distribution among the load cells for an individual patient (paragraphs 0042, 0076-0077, 0081, 0101-0102, and 0105 of Receveur).
Hoffman teaches a method of determining the weight of one or more removable components of a patient support apparatus that includes a plurality of load cells. The method comprises determining an initial tare weight for the patient support apparatus, prompting a user to add removable components to the patient support apparatus, detecting the presence of each removable component by a respective sensor associated with the respective removable component, and determining, using the load cells, the weight of the respective removable component (paragraph 0033 of Hoffman). Hoffman further teaches that the controller is configured to receive the signal produced by each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of sensors, determine an initial tare weight of the empty patient support apparatus, determine whether the patient support is supporting a patient as a function of the signals produced by the plurality of load cells, and determine the weight of the patient being supported on the patient support (paragraphs 0042 and 0052 of Hoffman). The controller is further configured to detect, subsequent to determining the weight of the patient, any subsequent removal or addition of the removable components of the patient support apparatus, update the tare weight of the patient support apparatus, and update the weight of the patient being supported on the patient support (paragraphs 0042 and 0052 of Hoffman). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine changes in the load cells as a function of adding or removing removable components of the patient support apparatus so as to get an accurate weight of the patient in the bed.
With respect to claim 1, the combination teaches or suggests a patient support apparatus located on a floor comprising:
a plurality of load cells (the load cells located at each of the four corners of the person support apparatus 10; paragraphs 0077 and 0101 of Receveur),
a frame (the frame 20 of Receveur) supported on the load cells,
a mattress (the mattress 52 of Receveur) including a plurality of inflatable zones (the inflatable zones 712, 714, and 716 of Receveur) positioned on the frame, the mattress and frame cooperating to direct any patient load through the mattress and frame to the load cells,
a plurality of air pressure sensors (the pressure sensors 720, 722, 724 configured to measure the internal fluid pressure in the zones 712, 714, 716 or individual bladders thereof; paragraph 0099 of Receveur), each air pressure sensor measuring a pressure in a respective inflatable zone of the mattress from the plurality of inflatable zones (paragraph 0099 of Receveur), and
a control system including a controller (the control system 730 of Receveur),
the controller operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors to monitor energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the air pressure sensors, the control system operable to detect an external load including external personnel load by determining presence of external energy corrupting a closed system of the patient support apparatus, and the controller further operable to process the signals to determine any motion as patient movement or non-patient movement and determine a mobility score for the patient based on the motion (the classification of patient motion/non-motion based on the load cell data at step 810 of Receveur and the pressure sensor data at steps 812-828 of Receveur; the classification of motion as removing or adding removable components (i.e., non-patient movement) when the component detectors indicates the addition or removal of removable components to the controller (i.e., detecting an external load by determining the presence of external energy corrupting the system); paragraphs 0042 and 0052 of Hoffman), and
wherein the controller is operable to determine the motion is non-patient movement when the control system detects the external load (the classification of motion as removing or adding removable components (i.e., non-patient movement) when the component detectors indicates the addition or removal of removable components to the controller (i.e., detecting an external load by determining the presence of external energy corrupting the system); paragraphs 0042 and 0052 of Hoffman) and
wherein the patient movement is characterized by a patient movement amplitude and a patient movement frequency (steps 816-828 of Receveur).
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches or suggests that one or more continuous sensors to monitor the motion and provide additional signals to determine the mobility score of the patient (the inclinometer, the accelerometer, the force sensor, and/or the optical sensor of claim 3 of Receveur).
With respect to claim 12, the combination teaches or suggests a system comprising:
a patient support surface including a plurality of inflatable zones (the inflatable zones 712, 714, and 716 of Receveur),
a plurality of load cells (the load cells located at each of the four corners of the person support apparatus 10; paragraphs 0077 and 0101 of Receveur) supporting the patient support surface,
a plurality of air pressure sensors (the pressure sensors 720, 722, 724 configured to measure the internal fluid pressure in the zones 712, 714, 716 or individual bladders thereof; paragraph 0099 of Receveur), each pressure sensor measuring a pressure in a respective inflatable zone from the plurality of inflatable zones of the patient support surface, and
a controller (the control system 730 of Receveur) to detect an external load including external personnel load by determining presence of an external energy corrupting a closed system of the patient support apparatus (the classification of motion as removing or adding removable components (i.e., non-patient movement) when the component detectors indicates the addition or removal of removable components to the controller (i.e., detecting an external load by determining the presence of external energy corrupting the system); paragraphs 0042 and 0052 of Hoffman), and further operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors, to process the signals to determine a mobility score of the patient (step 810 of Receveur processes the load cell data and steps 812-828 of Receveur processes the pressure sensor data to determine the mobility score), and
wherein the mobility score of the patient is characterized by non-patient movement and patient movement (the classification of patient motion/non-motion based on the load cell data at step 810 of Receveur and the pressure sensor data at steps 812-828 of Receveur),
wherein the non-patient movement is determined by the controller when the external load is detected (the classification of motion as removing or adding removable components (i.e., non-patient movement) when the component detectors indicates the addition or removal of removable components to the controller; paragraphs 0042 and 0052 of Hoffman), and
wherein the patient movement is characterized by patient movement amplitude and patient movement frequency (steps 816-828 of Receveur).
With respect to claim 13, the combination teaches or suggests that one or more continuous sensors to monitor the patient movement and provide additional signals to determine the mobility score of the patient (the inclinometer, the accelerometer, the force sensor, and/or the optical sensor of claim 3 of Receveur).
With respect to claim 15, the combination teaches or suggests a method of determining a mobility score of a patient on a patient support apparatus comprising an inflatable mattress having multiple inflatable zones, the method comprising the steps of (the inflatable zones 712, 714, and 716 of Receveur), the method comprising the steps of:
monitoring signals from a plurality of pressure sensors, each pressure sensor providing a signal indicative of a pressure in a respective inflatable zone from the multiple inflatable zones (measuring with the pressure sensors 720, 722, 724 configured to measure the internal fluid pressure in the zones 712, 714, 716 or individual bladders thereof; paragraph 0099 of Receveur);
monitoring signals from a plurality of load cells, the plurality of load cells supporting the inflatable mattress (measuring with the load cells located at each of the four corners of the person support apparatus 10; paragraphs 0077 and 0101 of Receveur);
processing the signals from the load cells and pressure sensors to detect any motion (the classification of patient motion/non-motion based on the load cell data at step 810 of Receveur and the pressure sensor data at steps 812-828 of Receveur);
detecting presence of an external load including external personnel load by determining presence of external energy corrupting a closed system of the patient support apparatus (the component detectors indicating the addition or removal of removable components to the controller (i.e., detecting an external load by determining the presence of external energy corrupting the system); paragraphs 0042 and 0052 of Hoffman);
upon detection of motion determining the mobility score based on non-patient movement, a patient movement amplitude, and a patient movement frequency (steps 810-828 of Receveur),
wherein the detected motion is further classified as the non-patient movement when the external load is detected (the classification of motion as removing or adding removable components (i.e., non-patient movement) when the component detectors indicates the addition or removal of removable components to the controller; paragraphs 0042 and 0052 of Hoffman).
With respect to claim 19, the combination teaches or suggests that determining the mobility score of the patient comprises processing additional signals from one or more additional continuous sensors monitoring patient movement on the patient support apparatus (the inclinometer, the accelerometer, the force sensor, and/or the optical sensor of claim 3 of Receveur).
Claims 3-4, 8-11, 17-18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur, in view of Hoffman, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0015277 (Sauser)(previously cited) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0066815 (Williamson)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,045,500 (Bieniarz)(previously cited).
Receveur teaches three examples of a mobility scale: (1) a 0-10 scale from completely immobile to no limitation (paragraph 0030 of Receveur); (2) a 10-0 scale from completely immobile to no limitations (paragraph 0030 of Receveur); and (3) a 1-4 scale (Table 1 of Receveur). Thus, Receveur suggests that a particular scale can be subject to change and/or selection. Sauser teaches a 1-5 scale from completely immobile to no limitations (paragraph 0186 of Sauser) and Williamson teaches a three step scale from completely immobile to no limitations (paragraph 0052 of Williamson). From these teachings, the numerical values assigned to conditions ranging from completely immobile, very limited, slightly limited, and not limited is subject to optimization depending upon preferences, accuracy, and desired resolution. As such, the numerical values assigned to conditions ranging from completely immobile, very limited, slightly limited, and not limited are results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on preferences, accuracy, and desired resolution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the numerical values assigned to conditions ranging from completely immobile, very limited, slightly limited, and not limited so as to obtain the desired preferences, accuracy, and desired resolution.
Additionally, Receveur teaches that the assignment of those numbers with respect to the various percentages of major and minor movements over a particular span of time is adapted to the requirements of a particular design or implementation (paragraphs 0109-0111 and Table 1 of Receveur). Thus, Receveur explicitly teaches that the assignment of the numbers for the mobility scores with respect to the various percentages of major and minor movements over a particular span of time are results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the requirements of a particular design or implementation. Bieniarz also teaches that percentages of movements is merely a number of movements over a particular span of time (col. 3, lines 5-15 and col. 4, lines 50-56 of Bieniarz). Thus, the use of the numbers of major and minor movements over a time span is a suitable substitute for the percentages of major and minor movements within a time span. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the numbers for the mobility scores with respect to the numbers of major and minor movements over a particular span of time (with the 30 seconds disclosed in FIG. 6 of Receveur as a starting point for the span of time) so as to obtain the desired requirements of a particular design or implementation. In view of the above, the features of claims 3-4, 8-11, 17-18, and 21-24 would have been obvious based on the optimization of the numbers for the mobility scores with respect to the various numbers of major and minor movements over a particular span of time.
Claims 5, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur, in view of Hoffman, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0125414 (Lafleche)(previously cited).
Receveur teaches the use of the load cells of paragraphs 0077 and 0101; the pressure sensors 720, 722, and 724; the inclinometer, the accelerometer, the force sensor, and/or the optical sensor; or the like so as to determine mobility scores (paragraphs 0009, 0046, 0050 of Receveur; claims 1 and claim 3 of Receveur).
Lafleche teaches that a video camera is a suitable sensor (paragraphs 0007 and 0041 and claim 19 of Lafleche). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a video camera for the use in determining mobility scores since (1) Receveur teaches that other like sensors may be used and Lafleche teaches one such sensor and/or (2) it provides more information for the determination of mobility.
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches or suggests that one or more continuous sensors to monitor the motion and provide additional signals to determine the mobility score of the patient (the video camera of Lafleche).
With respect to claim 13, the combination teaches or suggests one or more continuous sensors to monitor the patient movement and provide additional signals to determine the mobility score of the patient (the video camera of Lafleche).
With respect to claim 14, the combination teaches or suggests that the additional signals provide video observations of the patient (the video camera of Lafleche).
With respect to claim 19, the combination teaches or suggests that determining the mobility score of the patient comprises processing additional signals from one or more additional continuous sensors monitoring patient movement on the patient support apparatus (the video camera of Lafleche).
With respect to claim 20, the combination teaches or suggests the additional signals provide video observations of the patient (the video camera of Lafleche).
Claims 1, 5, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0259248 (Receveur)(previously cited), in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,036,660 (Toms)(previously cited).
Receveur teaches a patient support apparatus comprising: a plurality of load cells (the load cells located at each of the four corners of the person support apparatus 10; paragraphs 0077 and 0101 of Receveur), a frame (the frame 20 of Receveur), a mattress (the mattress 52 of Receveur) including a plurality of inflatable zones (the inflatable zones 712, 714, and 716 of Receveur), a plurality of air pressure sensors (the pressure sensors 720, 722, 724 configured to measure the internal fluid pressure in the zones 712, 714, 716 or individual bladders thereof; paragraph 0099 of Receveur), and a control system including a controller (the control system 730 of Receveur), the controller operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors to monitor energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the air pressure sensors, and the controller is further operable to process the signals to predict, a mobility score for the patient (step 810 of Receveur processes the load cell data and steps 812-828 of Receveur processes the pressure sensor data to determine the mobility score). The operation of the system of Receveur relies, in part, on the changes in the weight distribution among the load cells for an individual patient (paragraphs 0042, 0076-0077, 0081, 0101-0102, and 0105 of Receveur).
Toms teaches the identification of pressure changes resulting from external sources other than the patient and treating these changes as non-patient movement for exclusion from patient motion analysis (col. 4, lines 60 to col. 5, lines 20 of Toms). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify movements as pressure changes resulting from external sources other than the patient and exclude these changes from the movement analysis so as to achieve more accurate results when determining patient movement.
With respect to claim 1, the combination teaches or suggests a patient support apparatus located on a floor comprising:
a plurality of load cells (the load cells located at each of the four corners of the person support apparatus 10; paragraphs 0077 and 0101 of Receveur),
a frame (the frame 20 of Receveur) supported on the load cells,
a mattress (the mattress 52 of Receveur) including a plurality of inflatable zones (the inflatable zones 712, 714, and 716 of Receveur) positioned on the frame, the mattress and frame cooperating to direct any patient load through the mattress and frame to the load cells,
a plurality of air pressure sensors (the pressure sensors 720, 722, 724 configured to measure the internal fluid pressure in the zones 712, 714, 716 or individual bladders thereof; paragraph 0099 of Receveur), each air pressure sensor measuring a pressure in a respective inflatable zone of the mattress from the plurality of inflatable zones (paragraph 0099 of Receveur), and
a control system including a controller (the control system 730 of Receveur),
the controller operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors to monitor energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the air pressure sensors, the control system operable to detect an external load including external personnel load by determining presence of external energy corrupting a closed system of the patient support apparatus (the identification of pressure changes resulting from external sources other than the patient and treating these changes as non-patient movement for exclusion from the patient motion analysis; col. 4, lines 60 to col. 5, lines 20 of Toms), and the controller further operable to process the signals to determine any motion as patient movement or non- patient movement and determine a mobility score for the patient based on the motion (the classification of patient motion/non-motion based on the load cell data at step 810 of Receveur and the pressure sensor data at steps 812-828 of Receveur), and
wherein the controller is operable to determine the motion is non-patient movement when the control system detects the external load (the identification of pressure changes resulting from external sources other than the patient and treating these changes as non-patient movement for exclusion from the patient motion analysis; col. 4, lines 60 to col. 5, lines 20 of Toms) and
wherein the patient movement is characterized by a patient movement amplitude and a patient movement frequency (steps 816-828 of Receveur).
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches or suggests that one or more continuous sensors to monitor the motion and provide additional signals to determine the mobility score of the patient (the inclinometer, the accelerometer, the force sensor, and/or the optical sensor of claim 3 of Receveur).
With respect to claim 12, the combination teaches or suggests a system comprising:
a patient support surface including a plurality of inflatable zones (the inflatable zones 712, 714, and 716 of Receveur),
a plurality of load cells (the load cells located at each of the four corners of the person support apparatus 10; paragraphs 0077 and 0101 of Receveur) supporting the patient support surface,
a plurality of air pressure sensors (the pressure sensors 720, 722, 724 configured to measure the internal fluid pressure in the zones 712, 714, 716 or individual bladders thereof; paragraph 0099 of Receveur), each pressure sensor measuring a pressure in a respective inflatable zone from the plurality of inflatable zones of the patient support surface, and
a controller (the control system 730 of Receveur) operable to detect an external load including external personnel load by determining presence of an external energy corrupting a closed system of the patient support apparatus (the identification of pressure changes resulting from external sources other than the patient and treating these changes as non-patient movement for exclusion from the patient motion analysis; col. 4, lines 60 to col. 5, lines 20 of Toms), and further operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors, to process the signals to determine a mobility score of the patient (step 810 of Receveur processes the load cell data and steps 812-828 of Receveur processes the pressure sensor data to determine the mobility score), and
wherein the mobility score of the patient is characterized by non-patient movement and patient movement (the classification of patient motion/non-motion based on the load cell data at step 810 of Receveur and the pressure sensor data at steps 812-828 of Receveur),
wherein the non-patient movement is determined by the controller when the external load is detected (the identification of pressure changes resulting from external sources other than the patient and treating these changes as non-patient movement for exclusion from the patient motion analysis; col. 4, lines 60 to col. 5, lines 20 of Toms), and
wherein the patient movement is characterized by patient movement amplitude and patient movement frequency (steps 816-828 of Receveur).
With respect to claim 13, the combination teaches or suggests that one or more continuous sensors to monitor the patient movement and provide additional signals to determine the mobility score of the patient (the inclinometer, the accelerometer, the force sensor, and/or the optical sensor of claim 3 of Receveur).
Claims 3-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur, in view of Toms, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0015277 (Sauser)(previously cited) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0066815 (Williamson)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,045,500 (Bieniarz)(previously cited).
Receveur teaches three examples of a mobility scale: (1) a 0-10 scale from completely immobile to no limitation (paragraph 0030 of Receveur); (2) a 10-0 scale from completely immobile to no limitations (paragraph 0030 of Receveur); and (3) a 1-4 scale (Table 1 of Receveur). Thus, Receveur suggests that a particular scale can be subject to change and/or selection. Sauser teaches a 1-5 scale from completely immobile to no limitations (paragraph 0186 of Sauser) and Williamson teaches a three step scale from completely immobile to no limitations (paragraph 0052 of Williamson). From these teachings, the numerical values assigned to conditions ranging from completely immobile, very limited, slightly limited, and not limited is subject to optimization depending upon preferences, accuracy, and desired resolution. As such, the numerical values assigned to conditions ranging from completely immobile, very limited, slightly limited, and not limited are results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on preferences, accuracy, and desired resolution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the numerical values assigned to conditions ranging from completely immobile, very limited, slightly limited, and not limited so as to obtain the desired preferences, accuracy, and desired resolution.
Additionally, Receveur teaches that the assignment of those numbers with respect to the various percentages of major and minor movements over a particular span of time is adapted to the requirements of a particular design or implementation (paragraphs 0109-0111 and Table 1 of Receveur). Thus, Receveur explicitly teaches that the assignment of the numbers for the mobility scores with respect to the various percentages of major and minor movements over a particular span of time are results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the requirements of a particular design or implementation. Bieniarz also teaches that percentages of movements is merely a number of movements over a particular span of time (col. 3, lines 5-15 and col. 4, lines 50-56 of Bieniarz). Thus, the use of the numbers of major and minor movements over a time span is a suitable substitute for the percentages of major and minor movements within a time span. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the numbers for the mobility scores with respect to the numbers of major and minor movements over a particular span of time (with the 30 seconds disclosed in FIG. 6 of Receveur as a starting point for the span of time) so as to obtain the desired requirements of a particular design or implementation. In view of the above, the features of claims 3-4 and 8-11 would have been obvious based on the optimization of the numbers for the mobility scores with respect to the various numbers of major and minor movements over a particular span of time.
Claims 5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur, in view of Toms, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0125414 (Lafleche)(previously cited).
Receveur teaches the use of the load cells of paragraphs 0077 and 0101; the pressure sensors 720, 722, and 724; the inclinometer, the accelerometer, the force sensor, and/or the optical sensor; or the like so as to determine mobility scores (paragraphs 0009, 0046, 0050 of Receveur; claims 1 and claim 3 of Receveur).
Lafleche teaches that a video camera is a suitable sensor (paragraphs 0007 and 0041 and claim 19 of Lafleche). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a video camera for the use in determining mobility scores since (1) Receveur teaches that other like sensors may be used and Lafleche teaches one such sensor and/or (2) it provides more information for the determination of mobility.
With respect to claim 5, the combination teaches or suggests that one or more continuous sensors to monitor the motion and provide additional signals to determine the mobility score of the patient (the video camera of Lafleche).
With respect to claim 13, the combination teaches or suggests one or more continuous sensors to monitor the patient movement and provide additional signals to determine the mobility score of the patient (the video camera of Lafleche).
With respect to claim 14, the combination teaches or suggests that the additional signals provide video observations of the patient (the video camera of Lafleche).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered.
Drawing objections
In view of the amendments to the specification filed on 6/25/2026, the drawing objections are withdrawn.
Claim objections
In view of the claim amendments filed on 6/25/2026, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn. However, there are new grounds of claim objections that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 6/25/2026.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
In view of the claim amendments filed on 6/25/2026, the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been withdrawn. However, there are new claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 6/25/2026.
Prior art rejections based on Receveur and Hoffman
The Applicant asserts that Receveur does not teach a controller operable to process the signals to determine any motion as patient movement or non-patient movement or wherein the controller is operable to determine the motion is non-patient movement when the control system detects the external load. This argument is not persuasive since Hoffman is relied for supplying this teaching. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant asserts that Hoffman cannot distinguish or identify caregiver or visitor weight as a separate load. The claim language does not require that the controller distinguish or identify caregiver or visitor weight as a separate load. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim only requires the detection of an external load including an external personnel load by determining the presence of external energy. The detection of the external load by determining the presence of external energy corrupting the system is taught by Hoffman since the removing or adding of removable components is detected (i.e., non-patient movement) when the component detectors indicates the addition or removal of removable components (paragraphs 0042 and 0052 of Hoffman). This addition or removal of components is caused by personnel, thus making them external personnel loads.
The assertion that Hoffman does not teach any mobility score when a motion is determined to be patient movement is not persuasive since Receveur teaches this feature. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the above reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is proper. The rejection of claims 12 and 15 are proper for the same and/or analogous reasons. The rejections of the dependent claims are proper since the rejection of claims 1, 12, and15 are proper and the prior art teaches or suggests the features of these claims.
Prior art rejections based on Receveur and Tom
The Applicant asserts that Receveur does not teach a controller operable to process the signals to determine any motion as patient movement or non-patient movement or wherein the controller is operable to determine the motion is non-patient movement when the control system detects the external load. This argument is not persuasive since Toms is relied for supplying this teaching. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Applicant asserts that Tom teaches the filtering out of pressure changes resulting from external sources other than the patient and not detecting external energy corrupting the system or detecting an external personnel load by determining the presence of external energy corrupting the system. The argument is not persuasive. Tom teaches that the signals from the pressure transducer are interrogated to eliminate short signal durations of approximately less than 1 second that may be caused by minor, non-substantial, patient body movements or spurious pressure changes resulting from external sources other than the patient (col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line 2 of Tom). This action is detecting external energy corrupting the system, recognizing it as non-patient movement, and removing it. The claims do not require anything more. The claim does not require (1) that the external energy be from a personnel load (that is, the claim only states that the definition of external energy can include a personnel load) (2) that a load is identified as being a person.
For the above reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is proper. The rejection of claim 12 is proper for the same and/or analogous reasons. The rejections of the dependent claims are proper since the rejection of claims 1 and 12 are proper and the prior art teaches or suggests the features of these claims.
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 MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights