DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. The Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 112.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 12: the comma after “determine” should be deleted;
in claim 8, line 5: “the-slight” should be “the slight”;
in claim 12, line 10: “the” should be inserted before “non-patient movement”; and
in claim 21, line 4: “the-slight” should be “the slight”.
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 “wherein the motion is classified as non-patient movement when the control system identifies an external load” in lines 14-15, which renders the claim indefinite. First, it is not clear if the classification is the same as, related to, or different from the determination recited in the recitation “signals to determine any motion as patient movement or non-patient movement” in lines 11-12. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear.
Second, if they are different, it is not clear what element this classification action is being associated with since the action is not linked to a recited structure.
Third, it is not clear how the control system identifies an external load since nothing in the claim indicates how the control system makes this identification.
Fourth, the recitation reads as a method step in an apparatus claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. (MPEP 2173.05(p) citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claims 3-5 and 8-11 are rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the one or more major movement per hour comprises movement that includes at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds” in lines 6-8, which renders the claim indefinite. The recitation “wherein the one or more major movement per hour” expresses a rate of a number of movements per unit time with the unit time being an hour while the recitation “movement that includes at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds” is describing a unit of movement. The unit of the rate and the unit of movement are not the same such that it is not clear how a unit of rate “comprises” a unit of movement. This inconsistency of units renders claim in indefinite. The Examiner recommends amending the recitation “wherein the one or more major movement per hour comprises movement that includes at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds” in claim 8, lines 6-8 to be “wherein major movement is defined as at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds”.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the less than one major movement per hour includes at least one postural change in a period of about 30 seconds” in lines 6-7, which renders the claim indefinite. The recitation “wherein the less than one major movement per hour” expresses a rate of a number of movements per unit time with the unit time being an hour. However, the recitation “at least one postural change in a period of about 30 seconds” is describing a unit of movement. The unit of the rate and the unit of movement are not the same such that it is not clear how a unit of rate “includes” a unit of movement. This inconsistency of units renders claim in indefinite.1 The Examiner recommends amending the recitation “wherein the less than one major movement per hour includes at least one postural change in a period of about 30 seconds” in claim 9, lines 6-7 to be “wherein the major movement is defined as at least one postural change in a period of about 30 seconds”.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the less than one major movement per hour includes at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds” in lines 6-7, which renders the claim indefinite. The recitation “wherein the less than one major movement per hour” expresses a rate of a number of movements per unit time with the unit time being an hour. However, the recitation “at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds” is describing a unit of movement. The unit of the rate and the unit of movement are not the same such that it is not clear how a unit of rate “includes” a unit of movement. This inconsistency of units renders claim in indefinite.2 The Examiner recommends amending the recitation “wherein the less than one major movement per hour includes at least one postural change in a period of about 30 seconds” in claim 9, lines 6-7 to be “wherein the major movement is defined as at least one postural change in a period of about 30 seconds”.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the two or less slight movements per hour comprise movements that do not include any postural change for a period of 30 seconds” in lines 4-5, which renders the claim indefinite. The recitation “wherein the two or less slight movements per hour” expresses a rate of a number of movements per unit time with the unit time being an hour. However, the recitation “movements that do not include any postural change for a period of 30 seconds” is describing a unit of movement. The unit of the rate and the units of movement are not the same such that it is not clear how a unit of rate “comprises” a unit of movement. This inconsistency of units renders claim in indefinite.3 The Examiner recommends amending the recitation “wherein the two or less slight movements per hour comprise movements that do not include any postural change for a period of 30 seconds” in claim 11, lines 4-5 to be “wherein the slight movement is defined as any postural change for a period of 30 seconds”.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the less than one major movement per hour includes at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds” in lines 6-7, which renders the claim indefinite. The recitation “wherein the less than one major movement per hour” expresses a rate of a number of movements per unit time with the unit time being an hour. However, the recitation “at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds” is describing a unit of movement. The unit of the rate and the unit of movement are not the same such that it is not clear how a unit of rate “includes” a unit of movement. This inconsistency of units renders claim in indefinite.4 The Examiner recommends amending the recitation “wherein the less than one major movement per hour includes at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds” in claim 11, lines 6-7 to be “wherein the major movement is defined as at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds”.
Claim 12 recites “wherein non-patient movement is determined by the controller when an external load is identified” in lines 10-11, but it is not clear how does the controller identifies an external load since nothing in the claim indicates how the controller makes this identification.
Claims 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 12.
Claim 15 recites “monitoring energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the pressure sensors” in line 9, but it is not clear how this recitation relates to the other claimed steps of claim 15. None of the other steps before or after this recited step refers to the monitored energy again. Also, it is not clear what relation this energy has to the signals from the plurality of pressure sensors and the signals from the plurality of load cells. Is the energy referring to these signals? The claim does not make their relationship clear.
Claim 15 recites “the non-patient movement” in lines 12-13 in which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites that motion is identified in line 10 (“to identify any motion”), is detected in line 12 (“upon detection of motion”), and is classified in line 14 (“the motion is classified”), but it is not clear if the identification, detection, and classification are referring the same process or different processes. If they are all the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the motion is classified as the non-patient movement when an external load is identified” in line 14, but it is not clear how this identification occurs or comes about.
Claims 17-24 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 15.
Claim 19 recites “the patient movement” in line 3 in which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the one or more major movements comprise movements that include at least one postural change in a period of 30 seconds” in lines 5-6, but it is not clear if this recitation is requiring multiple movements with the expression “comprise movements…” or not. If so, the word “one or more” are superfluous.
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).
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, and the controller is 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 motion is classified as non-patient movement when the control system identifies an 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; 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) 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 non-patient movement is determined by the controller when an external load is identified (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);
monitoring energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the pressure sensors (steps 810-828 of Receveur);
processing the signals from the load cells and pressure sensors to identify 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);
upon detection of motion, determining the mobility score based on the non-patient movement, a patient movement amplitude, and a patient movement frequency (steps 810-828 of Receveur),
wherein the motion is classified as the non-patient movement when an external load is identified (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 the 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 the 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, 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 No. 6,036,660 (Toms).
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, and the controller is 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 motion is classified as non-patient movement when the control system identifies an 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 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 non-patient movement is determined by the controller when an external load is identified (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).
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);
monitoring energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the pressure sensors (steps 810-828 of Receveur);
processing the signals from the load cells and pressure sensors to identify 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);
upon detection of motion, determining the mobility score based on the non-patient movement, a patient movement amplitude, and a patient movement frequency (steps 810-828 of Receveur),
wherein the motion is classified as the non-patient movement when an external load is identified (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).
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 the 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 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, 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 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).
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 the 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).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered.
Drawing objections
There are new objections to the drawings.
Claim objections
In view of the claim amendments filed on 11/12/2025, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn. However, there are new grounds of claim objections.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph
In view of the claim amendments filed on 11/12/2025, the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
In view of the claim amendments filed on 11/12/2025, 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.
Prior art Rejections
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-15, and 17-24 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. That is, there are new grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
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
1 Also, the recitation also seems to connote that the less than one major movement per hour must include a movement, thus requiring a non-zero value.
2 Also, the recitation also seems to connote that the less than one major movement per hour must include a movement, thus requiring a non-zero value.
3 Also, the recitation also seems to connote that the two or more slight movements per hour must include multiple movements, thus requiring two slight movements.
4 Also, the recitation also seems to connote that the less than one major movement per hour must include a movement, thus requiring a non-zero value.
Prosecution Insights