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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s request for rejoinder has been considered and is denied as it is not appropriate at this stage of prosecution. The claims are not allowable. Applicant’s amendments to the claims do not result in allowability as detailed in the rejections below. Applicant has amended the claims to include a proximity sensor at a particular position and which yields signals regarding the presence or removal of an individual. The use of proximity sensors as described is well-known in the art and the amendment does not distinguish over the prior art of record. See below for details.
Please note that any and all official notice statements from the prior action are taken to be admitted prior art because applicant has not traversed the examiner’s assertion of official notice. See MPEP 2144.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunn et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20140277778 and hereinafter “Nunn”) in view of Kahn et al. (US Patent No. 11344460 and hereinafter “Kahn”) or Ribble et al. (US PG Pub No. 20140022081 and hereinafter “Ribble”).
Re Claim 1
Nunn discloses:
A smart bed (see all figures), comprising:
a mattress (fig. 1; abstract, title, [0003], [0004]) including at least one air bladder (e.g. 14a and/or 14b) and at least one pump (20, but see also [0017]) that communicates with an interior of the at least one air bladder to pressurize the at least one air bladder ([0012]; fig. 1), the mattress defining a sleep surface (top of the mattress);
a pressure sensor associated with the sleep surface of the mattress (pressure sensing via the transducer and/or the A/D converter, see also [0017]-[0021]);
a processor (36) in communication with the pressure sensor and the pump ([0017]-[0021]; figures 2-6), the processor programmed to:
detect a presence of an individual on the sleep surface ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification);
detect removal of the individual from the sleep surface ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification); and
upon detecting the removal of the individual over an edge and from the sleep surface, cause the pump to adjust a pressure in the at least one air bladder in a manner that places the mattress in an out-of-bed state ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification).
Nunn does not explicitly disclose the amended claim language of:
“a proximity sensor positioned at or near an edge of a cover of the mattress” with “the proximity sensor” associated with the sleep surface of the mattress.
As stated above, Nunn uses pressure sensors. Therefore, the processor in Nunn is in communication with the pressure sensor, not a proximity sensor as recited in the amended claim language. Further, the detection is therefore also not based upon first and second signals from a proximity sensor as claimed. However, it is known in the art that pressure or proximity sensors (or a variety of other sensors) may be utilized for user detection. Kahn teaches the above – “Sleeping surface controller 210 may include, in one embodiment, sensors 212. Sensors 212 may be a proximity sensor, pressure sensor, weight sensor, motion sensor, other sensor integrated with the sleeping surface and/or sleeping surface controller 210 to sense that the user is on the controlled sleeping surface…” The same is taught by Ribble; see paragraph [0030]. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Nunn to substitute the pressure sensor for a proximity sensor etc. as claimed as a simple substitution with predictable results and for the purpose of monitoring a user’s location. The above would result in the processor detecting based upon signals, as is known and disclosed / taught regarding proximity sensors – the sensors send signals which are with regard to the presence / removal of an individual from the support / sleep surface. Regarding the location of the proximity sensor, to the extent necessary, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the proximity sensor positioned at or near an edge of a cover of the mattress, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re Claim 2
Nunn as modified above discloses:
wherein the processor is further programmed to:
following removal of the individual from the sleep surface, detect an absence of the individual from the sleep surface for a predetermined duration of time before causing the pump to adjust the pressure in the at least one air bladder ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification; in particular, see [0047]-[0048] but see also [0057]).
Re Claim 3
Nunn as modified above discloses:
wherein the processor, upon detecting the removal of the individual from the sleep surface, causes the at least one pump to increase a pressure in the at least one air bladder to render the sleep surface planar or convex ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification; in particular, see [0047]-[0048] but see also [0057]; see also [0044] and [0050], indicating that maximum pressure yields a “full bed” which corresponds to planar or convex).
Re Claim 4
Nunn as modified above discloses:
wherein the processor, upon detecting the removal of the individual from the sleep surface, causes the at least one pump to increase a pressure in the at least one air bladder to puff the mattress ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification).
Re Claim 7
Nunn as modified above discloses:
wherein the processor is further programmed to:
after detecting removal of the individual from the sleep surface and causing the at least one pump to adjust the pressure within the at least one air bladder, detect a presence of the individual on the sleep surface ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification); and
upon detecting the presence of the individual on the sleep surface, cause the at least one pump to readjust the pressure within the at least one air bladder to place the smart bed in a sleep state ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification; see also, for example [0070]-[0074]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunn et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20140277778 and hereinafter “Nunn”) in view of Kahn et al. (US Patent No. 11344460 and hereinafter “Kahn”) or Ribble et al. (US PG Pub No. 20140022081 and hereinafter “Ribble”) and further in view of Official Notice / Admitted Prior Art.
Re Claim 5
Nunn as modified above discloses that the apparatus is a bed which is adjustable to different positions, for example the foot or head may be raised, etc. (see [0004]), but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising:
an adjustable base carrying the mattress; and
at least one motor associated with the adjustable base in a manner that enables adjustment of the adjustable base.
Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to have an adjustable base carrying a mattress (which is at least suggested in the reference in paragraph [0004]) and at least one motor associated with the adjustable base in a manner that enables adjustment of the adjustable base for the purpose of providing the functions contemplated by and described in the reference in [0004], e.g. multiple adjustable sections of a bed so as to suit user comfort, preferences, and/or medical necessity. Incorporating the above limitations into Nunn would have been an obvious modification to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the purpose described above.
Claim(s) 6 and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nunn et al. (US PG Pub. No. 20140277778 and hereinafter “Nunn”) in view of Kahn et al. (US Patent No. 11344460 and hereinafter “Kahn”) or Ribble et al. (US PG Pub No. 20140022081 and hereinafter “Ribble”), in view of Official Notice / Admitted Prior Art, and further in view of Purser et al. (US PG Pub No. 20180325270 and hereinafter “Purser”).
Re Claim 6
Nunn as modified above discloses all claim limitations, see above, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the processor, upon detecting removal of the individual from the sleep surface, causes the motor to place the adjustable base and the mattress into flat arrangements.
Purser teaches a bed with an adjustable base / mattress with a processor which, upon detecting removal of the individual from the sleep surface, causes the motor to place the adjustable base and the mattress into flat arrangements (abstract; fig. 4, for example; figs. 22-24, for example; [0102] which discusses the exemplary action of lowering the foot of the bed when complete removal of a user from the bed is detected – it is noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to take other associated activities such as additionally lowering the head end for the same purpose – providing a bed which is ready for subsequent use for the user and to facilitate entry / use) for the same purpose of providing a bed which is ready for subsequent use for the user and to facilitate entry / use. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Nunn as modified above to include the limitations above for the purpose(s) articulated above.
Re Claim 8
Nunn discloses:
A smart bed (see all figures), comprising:
…
a mattress (fig. 1; abstract, title, [0003], [0004]) carried by the adjustable base (see all figures and also see below) and including at least one air bladder (e.g. 14a and/or 14b) and a pump (20, but see also [0017]) that communicates with an interior of the at least one air bladder to pressurize the at least one air bladder ([0012]; fig. 1), the mattress defining a sleep surface (top of the mattress);
a pressure sensor associated with the sleep surface of the mattress (pressure sensing via the transducer and/or the A/D converter, see also [0017]-[0021]);
a processor (36) in communication with the pressure sensor and the pump ([0017]-[0021]; figures 2-6), the processor programmed to:
detect a presence of an individual on the sleep surface ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification);
detect removal of the individual over an edge and from the sleep surface ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification); and
upon detecting removal of the individual from the sleep surface, cause the pump to adjust a pressure in the at least one air bladder ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification) …
Nunn discloses that the apparatus is a bed which is adjustable to different positions, for example the foot or head may be raised, etc. (see [0004]), but does not explicitly disclose:
an adjustable base;
a motor associated with the adjustable base in a manner that enables adjustment of the adjustable base;
upon detecting removal of the individual from the sleep surface … cause the motor to adjust the adjustable base to place the mattress in an out-of-bed state.
Examiner hereby takes official notice that it is old and well known in the art to have an adjustable base carrying a mattress (which is at least suggested in the reference in paragraph [0004]) and a motor associated with the adjustable base in a manner that enables adjustment of the adjustable base for the purpose of providing the functions contemplated by and described in the reference in [0004], e.g. multiple adjustable sections of a bed so as to suit user comfort, preferences, and/or medical necessity. Incorporating the above limitations into Nunn would have been an obvious modification to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date for the purpose described above.
Purser teaches a bed with an adjustable base / mattress with a processor which, upon detecting removal of the individual from the sleep surface … causes adjustment to place the mattress in an out-of-bed state, which would readily be known to utilize the motor via adjustment of the adjustable base (e.g. via the lowering action discussed in the disclosure, citations to follow, although the reference does not describe the motors used in great detail, see the modification above regarding the use of motors and adjustable bases which are old and well known in the art). Among other things, Purser’s teachings include placing the bed into a flat arrangement, e.g. causing adjustment to place the mattress in an out-of-bed state (abstract; fig. 4, for example; figs. 22-24, for example; [0102] which discusses the exemplary action of lowering the foot of the bed when complete removal of a user from the bed is detected – it is noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to take other associated activities such as additionally lowering the head end for the same purpose – providing a bed which is ready for subsequent use for the user and to facilitate entry / use) for the same purpose of providing a bed which is ready for subsequent use for the user and to facilitate entry / use. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Nunn as modified above to include the limitations above, including adjustments via the motor of the base in conjunction with the at least one bladder as claimed, for the purpose(s) articulated above.
Nunn does not explicitly disclose the amended claim language of:
“a proximity sensor positioned at or near an edge of a cover of the mattress” with “the proximity sensor” associated with the sleep surface of the mattress.
As stated above, Nunn uses pressure sensors. Therefore, the processor in Nunn is in communication with the pressure sensor, not a proximity sensor as recited in the amended claim language. Further, the detection is therefore also not based upon first and second signals from a proximity sensor as claimed. However, it is known in the art that pressure or proximity sensors (or a variety of other sensors) may be utilized for user detection. Kahn teaches the above – “Sleeping surface controller 210 may include, in one embodiment, sensors 212. Sensors 212 may be a proximity sensor, pressure sensor, weight sensor, motion sensor, other sensor integrated with the sleeping surface and/or sleeping surface controller 210 to sense that the user is on the controlled sleeping surface…” The same is taught by Ribble; see paragraph [0030]. It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Nunn to substitute the pressure sensor for a proximity sensor etc. as claimed as a simple substitution with predictable results and for the purpose of monitoring a user’s location. The above would result in the processor detecting based upon signals, as is known and disclosed / taught regarding proximity sensors – the sensors send signals which are with regard to the presence / removal of an individual from the support / sleep surface. Regarding the location of the proximity sensor, to the extent necessary, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the proximity sensor positioned at or near an edge of a cover of the mattress, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Re Claim 9
Nunn as modified above discloses:
wherein the processor is further programmed to:
following removal of the individual from the sleep surface, detect an absence of the individual from the sleep surface for a predetermined duration of time before causing the pump to adjust the pressure in the at least one air bladder and before causing the motor to adjust the adjustable base ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification; in particular, see [0047]-[0048] but see also [0057]; additionally, see above regarding motor adjustment which would operate in conjunction with generally adjusting the bed as described in the citations above).
Re Claim 10
Nunn as modified above discloses:
wherein the out-of-bed state includes planar or convex orientation of the sleep surface of the mattress ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification; in particular, see [0047]-[0048] but see also [0057]; see also [0044] and [0050], indicating that maximum pressure yields a “full bed” which corresponds to planar or convex).
Re Claim 11
Nunn as modified above discloses:
wherein the processor, upon detecting the removal of the individual from the sleep surface, causes the pump to increase a pressure in the at least one air bladder to puff the mattress ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification).
Re Claim 12
Nunn as modified above discloses:
wherein the processor is further programmed to:
after detecting removal of the individual from the sleep surface and causing the pump to adjust the pressure within the at least one air bladder, detect a presence of the individual on the sleep surface ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification); and
upon detecting the presence of the individual on the sleep surface, cause the pump to readjust the pressure within the at least one air bladder to place the smart bed in a sleep state ([0044]-[0053] and [0057]-[0060]; figs. 2-6 and corresponding description in the specification; see also, for example [0070]-[0074]).
Re Claim 13
Nunn as modified above discloses:
wherein the processor is further programmed to:
upon detecting the presence of the individual on the sleep surface (Nunn teaches additional monitoring upon detection, see citations above)…
Nunn as modified above does not explicitly disclose:
cause the motor to readjust the adjustable base to further place the adjustable base and the mattress in the sleep state.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have Nunn, via its detection and monitoring (see above), cause the motor to readjust the adjustable base to further place the adjustable base and the mattress in the sleep state as making adjustments of the base to maintain a sleep state goes along with and in conjunction with making adjustments to a bladder to maintain a sleep state. To the extent necessary, it is noted that Purser monitors and causes the motor to readjust the adjustable base to further place the adjustable base and the mattress in the sleep state for the purpose of maintaining a sleep state and it would have been obvious to modify Nunn as modified above to incorporate the limitations above for the purpose(s) as articulated above (see Purser figs. 22-24, see [0102], [0004], [0077]-[0080], see figs. 37-38 and [0143]-[0144]).
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 DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571)272-8525. 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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights