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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 6, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to the objection to the drawings have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues, “As discussed in the Petition filed along with this response, the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) do not apply to this National Stage filing of a PCT application”. Per the Petition Decision mailed 26 November 2025, MPEP 1893.03(f) “does not preclude the examiner from making an objection under 37 CFR 1.83(a). In fact, such a drawing objection made in the non-final Office action mailed June 23, 2025 is [supported] by PCT Article 7(2)(ii), which is unaffected by the consideration MPEP 1893.03(f) gives to PCT Rule 11.” Accordingly, the objection to the drawings is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 6, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to the objections to claims 32 and 33 for minor informalities have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 6-7, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. As noted on page 6, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are premised on certain claim limitations invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). As all but one of those limitations (i.e., analysis unit) has been removed, the corresponding invocation and rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant argues on page 7, referring to the analysis unit, that a POSITA “would have understood from the disclosure that the corresponding structure is a processor because the application discloses the analysis as performing as a process” based on at least paragraphs 12 and 13 of the specification. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The specification does not explicitly describe the corresponding structure of the analysis unit for performing the claimed functions recited in claim 18. Performing a process in itself does not necessarily require a processor specifically, as a process is merely a series of steps of a method. Paragraph 12 of the specification describes functionality of an “analysis unit” and not its corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions thereof. For instance, a memory is mentioned in paragraph 12 as part of the analysis unit, but only in relation to where the information is stored, not in relation to what structure is performing the storing, evaluating, and so forth. A memory does not “evaluate temporal changes” as recited in paragraph 12. Paragraph 13 indicates that in some embodiments the analysis unit includes (i.e., “has”) a “transmission unit for transmitting the physiological parameters to a network and/or to a mobile device” (e.g., a Bluetooth device). As with the memory described in paragraph 12, a transmission unit or transmitter is only responsible for communicating information/data and is not described as performing the functions of the analysis unit as claimed. The specification, therefore, supports embodiments of an analysis unit comprising a memory for storing data and a transmitter (e.g., Bluetooth transmitter) for transmitting data, which are not the structure(s) corresponding to the claimed functions of “process image or temperature information of the at least one thermal imaging camera … perform automatic evaluation … output an indication … and output … a warning”.
Upon further review of the specification, the specification explicitly supports embodiments of an analysis unit comprising a memory and transmitter (as in pars. 12-13). Such structure is not reasonably interpreted as a processor because processors (e.g., general-purpose CPUs) do not include/comprise memory for storing program instructions and a transmitter, like a Bluetooth transceiver, for communicating data. However, the specification implicitly supports well-known devices having the structure described above and being capable of performing the claimed functions. For example, such devices (i.e., corresponding structure) include a general-purpose computer (e.g., a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a smartphone), a server, a system-on-a-chip (SoC), and a field-programmable gate array (FPGA).
Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument on page 7 that a POSITA would understand the “analysis unit” to be equivalent to “processor”. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument does not amount to stating on the record what corresponding structure, material, or acts are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification to perform the claimed functions of the “analysis unit”. See 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above disagreement notwithstanding, it is now understood based on the specification that the corresponding structure of the analysis unit includes a memory, a transmitter or transceiver, and a processor. Consequently, claims 22, 24, and 25, therefore, are interpreted to further limit the memory or transmitter that is already included in the corresponding structure of the analysis unit of claim 18 and are compliant under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). In other words, the corresponding structure of the analysis unit of claim 18 includes a memory, a transmitter, and a processor (or equivalent, e.g., an FPGA programed to simulate a processor).
Accordingly, the rejections of claims 18-31, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with respect to the “analysis unit” are withdrawn because the written description implicitly discloses the corresponding structure for performing the claimed functions.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks at page 7, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant argues that with the inclusion of the amended subject matter, claim 32 is not directed to an abstract idea, but “instead to a technological improvement in sleeping or reclining furniture that improves thermal imaging of a person”. Claim 32 now recites, “automatically evaluating the sequence of images to determine a center of gravity of a temperature distribution indicating a body temperature of the person, outputting an indication whether the center of gravity is approximately in a center of the sequence of images, and outputting, responsive to the person approaching an edge of one of the sequence of images, a warning message …” (emphasis added). Based on at least paragraphs 11, 14, 32 and 36 of the specification, the subject matter of the amended claim limitations in claim 32 is described in the specification as achieving a technological improvement to the functioning of a computer and the field of sleep monitoring. See MPEP 2106.05. Considering the limitations of claim 32 as a whole, it is no longer reasonable to interpret claim 32 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Accordingly, claim 32 is eligible at Step 2B because the claim as a whole recites significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-10, filed 22 September 2025, with respect to Hay and Choi and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because Applicant’s arguments are directed to the amended subject matter, which relies upon new art/grounds to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one further sensor connected to the analysis unit, wherein the at least one further sensor is a vibration sensor, sound sensor, or a camera sensitive in a visible spectral range” recited in claim 21, “a nursing bed … at least two thermal cameras, each of which is arranged on a side rail of the nursing bed” recited in claim 29, “an electromotive furniture drive with adjustment drives” recited in claim 31, “selecting a body region on the image displayed on the display device and inputting the body temperature on an input device coupled to the display device” recited in claim 33, and “mobile device” recited in claims 24-26 and 34 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“an analysis unit connected to the at least one thermal imaging camera to process image or temperature information of the at least one thermal imaging camera … perform automatic evaluation … output an indication … and output … a warning message” in claims 18-29 and 31.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Regarding the term “message” in claims 18 and 32 (including their dependent claims 19-29, 31, 33, and 34), as in “warning message”, is not provided with a limiting definition in the specification. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a message is a communication (of information) by signal(s).1 A “warning message” therefore, is interpreted as a communication by signal(s) that conveys or causes a warning, alert, alarm, or the like. For example, a signal sent to a siren/speaker to sound an alarm or an alphanumeric message sent as a signal to a display are warning messages.
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.
Claims 18-29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18 and 32 recite, in part, output/outputting “a warning message with a warning level over a network” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the warning message alone or both the warning message and a warning level are output. In other words, it is unclear whether a warning message that has an associated warning level is output over a network or a warning message and its associated warning level are both output over the network. For purposes of applying prior art, the examiner interprets “with a warning level” as meaning the “warning message” includes “a warning level” such that the receiving entity understands that not only a warning was output, but a warning with a specific warning level has been output. Dependent claims 19-29, 31, 33, and 34 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claims 18 and 32.
Claims 18 and 32 recite, in part, “the message indicates that the position or the orientation of the at least one thermal imaging camera should be checked to determine whether the orientation of the at least one thermal imaging camera is a correct orientation” (emphasis added). The term “indicates” creates ambiguity in understanding what the warning message is. It is unclear how “the message” conveys information indicating that the camera “should be checked to determine” whether the camera’s orientation “is a correct orientation”. For example, it is unclear whether “the position or the orientation” of the camera is indicated in the content of the message (e.g., as alphanumeric text readable by a person on a display) or indicated when interpreted by the receiving entity (e.g., a generated warning message signal instructs an LED to turn on or off, signifying that one of several possible causes of the warning is the camera’s orientation needing correction). In the latter interpretation, the warning message is output in response to determining whether the center of gravity is approximately in a center of the image, and the message itself merely needs to be capable as being interpreted by a receiving entity of the message as being caused by the camera’s orientation needing correction. For purposes of applying prior art, the examiner interprets this limitation according to the latter interpretation.
Relatedly, the phrase “should be checked to determine” (emphasis added) is confusing because it implies that the camera’s orientation may need correction or may not need correction depending on the outcome of the determination, which is not a step or function being explicitly claimed, thereby making it unclear whether claims 18 and 32 require the determination to take place. As such, it is unclear whether the analysis unit of claim 18 or the method of claim 32 include the determination or if the warning message is simply output and the determination is not included in the scope of the claims. For purposes of applying prior art, the Examiner interprets claims 18 and 32 as requiring a warning message being output, the message including a warning level, such that the receiving entity understands that not only a warning, but a warning with a specific warning level, has been output. Dependent claims 19-29, 31, 33, and 34 are rejected for inheriting and not curing the deficiencies of claims 18 and 32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 18-24, 26, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. No. 10108325 to Hay et al. (hereinafter “Hay”) in view of KR Pat. No. 101398999 to Choi et al. (hereinafter “Choi”), in further view of KR Pat. No. 101420200 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”), in further view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20120138801 to Vanderpohl (hereinafter “Vanderpohl”), and in further view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20200221977 to Tanaka et al. (hereinafter “Tanaka”).
Regarding claim 18, Hay teaches a sleeping or reclining furniture, comprising:
a sensor (Hay, col. 21, ll. 27-43, “infrared camera”) configured to detect physiological parameters of a person using the sleeping or reclining furniture (Hay, col. 25, ll. 14-19, “determine respiratory effort, respiration rate, and other breathing parameters to diagnose sleep apnea (Central and Obstructive) through the use of the inventive methods and software.”), wherein the sensor is at least one thermal imaging camera (Hay, col. 13, ll. 10, “thermal image”) [
an analysis unit (Hay, col. 5, ll. 56-57, “using a processor”) connected to the at least one thermal imaging camera, wherein the analysis unit is configured to
process image or temperature information of the at least one thermal imaging camera (Hay, col. 13, ll. 10, “thermal image”), but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Choi.
Choi teaches wherein a sensor (Choi, par. 30, “posture measuring unit 120”) is a thermal imaging camera (Choi, par. 43, “infrared camera”) arranged on the sleeping or reclining furniture (Choi, FIG. 2).
Hay discloses a thermal camera that acquires thermal images of a person’s body while they are sleeping on a bed using a camera that can be re-positioned (Hay, col. 22, l. 14; FIG. 17). Thus, Hay shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermal camera together with a bed to monitor a person sleeping, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters. Choi discloses a thermal camera that acquires thermal images of a person’s body while they are sleeping on a bed, where the thermal camera is attached to a headboard of the bed (Choi, FIG. 2) and the bed is motorized (Choi, FIG. 3). Thus, Choi shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach thermal cameras headboards to monitor people sleeping in beds, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to attach the thermal camera disclosed by Hay to a headboard of a motorized bed as disclosed by Choi to thereby monitor a person’s sleep using the attached thermal camera and controlling the bed using the processor disclosed by Hay. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of forming a compact sleep monitoring system and moving the thermal camera to a consistent and nearby position to capture a person’s full body for sleep analysis in a posture they naturally use to fall asleep.
Hay in view of Choi does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Kim.
Kim teaches wherein the at least one thermal imaging camera is flexibly arranged with respect to its position or orientation on the sleeping or reclining furniture (Kim, par. 108, “The photographing direction setting module inputs and sets the panning angle, tilting angle and magnification. The panning angle, the tilting angle, and the magnification are set to an optimum angle at which the face (face) of the imaging subject can be photographed according to the position of the imaging subject. At this time, the angle to be set is configured such that the user changes the photographing direction of the thermal imaging camera 110 by using a joystick or the like based on the bed (bed) on which the person to be photographed lies and manipulates the button at the variable position. That is, the user may be configured to forcibly adjust the photographing direction control unit 120 while viewing an image displayed through the thermal imager 110, and to set the adjusted angle to panning, tilting, and magnification.”).
Hay in view of Choi are analogous to the claimed invention for the reasons provided above. Kim discloses using a thermal camera to monitor body temperature of a person in bed (Kim, Abstract and FIG. 3). Kim also discloses a pan and tilt mechanism to flexibly move the camera with a joystick (Kim, par. 108). Thus, Kim shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use a flexibly arranged thermal camera to monitor a person in bed at different positions or orientations, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a pan and tilt mechanism as disclosed by Kim to the thermal camera disclosed by Hay in view of Choi to thereby manipulate the view of the camera using a joystick in response to receiving an indication to check the camera or otherwise to monitor the person. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of gaining more flexibility in arranging the camera to best capture a person in bed given their particular environment.
Hay in view of Choi and in further view of Kim does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Vanderpohl.
Vanderpohl teaches perform automatic evaluation of the image to determine a center [acceptable value”, and pars. 51-52, “as the patient moves out of frame … the change in position of the centroid 60 is monitored”),
output an indication whether the center [
output, responsive to the person approaching an edge of the image, a warning message with a warning level over a network (Vanderpohl discloses outputting alarms with different levels indicating different scenarios in the monitored area. See Vanderpohl at par. 56, “the monitoring system 12 may communicate alarms to a remote station 92” and par. 54, “It should be understood that the alarm level may be adjustable depending on the expected level of patient activity or the patient risk for fall is the patient is detected to be exiting from the bed 10.”), [such that if the centroid 60 moves outside of some limit in either the x-axis or y-axis, an alarm is generated by the controller 40. When the static position alarm approach is used, it may be indicative of a patient who is attempting to egress from the bed 10 or it may be indicative that the patient has moved to an improper position on the bed and needs to be repositioned by a caregiver.”).
Hay in view of Choi and in furth view of Kim is analogous to the claimed invention for the reasons provided above. Vanderpohl discloses a patient support apparatus with a thermal camera that detects a patient’s temperature from acquired thermal images of the patient’s body while they are sleeping on a bed, using the thermal camera to track the patient via a centroid representing their body temperature, and outputting a warning message to a remote location, the warning message having one of a plurality of different levels corresponding to specific patient activity. Thus, Vanderpohl shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermal camera to track a distribution of temperature values representing the patient and outputting a warning level depending on the behavior of a central area of the distribution (i.e., centroid), which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters of a person/patient in a bed.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the centroid tracking and warning generation logic disclosed by Vanderpohl with the thermal camera system of Hay in view of Choi and in further view of Kim to thereby monitor the patient and output a warning level based on the degree to which a position of a centroid of temperature values deviates from a center of the image produced by the thermal camera. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of automatically notifying a caregiver in the event the camera’s pose needs to be adjusted or the patient is in need of assistance (e.g., patient is not in their bed, patient is getting dressed, patient is moving around in their bed, patient is about to fall out of their bed).
Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, and in further view of Vanderpohl does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Tanaka.
Tanaka teaches a center of gravity (Tanaka, pars. 32-22, “even when an infrared sensor is used as the image sensor, it can be determined that care is needed by taking advantage of the characteristics of the thermal image, such as when the change in the position of the thermal center of gravity is below a certain threshold. Conversely, if the change in the position of the thermal center of gravity is above a certain threshold value, it can be determined that care is needed, such as when the care receiver is changing clothes, or when a mobile terminal is being operated, for example”; par. 76, “infrared array camera”; par. 164, “examples of a warning display include flashing of the dummy image D1 on the display device 22, changing the color of the display, and giving a warning that combines text information. When the color is changed, for example, it may be changed from the normal display color of the dummy image D1 to red. Also, a warning display that combines text information may include, for example, a text display such as “care receiver needs nursing care!” A warning sound such as a beep may also be used in conjunction with the display.”; par. 295, “This text information may consist of a plurality of sets of text information corresponding to the determination result by the determination component that determines the how urgently the care receiver needs care, with this information stored ahead of time in the storage component 14 or the like.”).
Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, and in further view of Vanderpohl is analogous to the claimed invention for the reasons provided above. Tanaka discloses a display control device for a caregiver of a patient receiving care that uses a thermal center of gravity derived from a thermal image compared to a threshold to determine whether to output a warning including a text describing the nature of the warning. Thus, Tanaka shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermal camera to track a distribution of temperature values as a center of gravity representing the patient and outputting a warning with associated text, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the calculation of the centroid as disclosed by Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, and in further view of Vanderpohl with a center of gravity calculation as disclosed by Tanaka, and supplement the warning with an associated text description of a message as further disclosed by Tanaka, to thereby track a center of gravity from continuously acquired thermal images of a monitored area of a patient in a bed and output a warning with text reflecting the level of urgency of the warning (e.g., camera may need adjustment, patient needs urgent attention). Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of enriching the information provided to a caregiver of the patient, thereby improving their initial response to the patient by being better informed of the situation that triggered the warning.
Regarding claim 19, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 18, wherein the analysis unit is configured to evaluate temporal changes in the image or temperature information of the at least one thermal imaging camera (Hay, col. 25, ll. 14-19, “respiration rate”).
Regarding claim 20, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 19, wherein the analysis unit is configured to determine a body temperature of the person as a physiological parameter (Hay, col. 20, ll. 60-61, “thermal reading of body temperature”).
Regarding claim 21, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 20, further comprising:
at least one further sensor connected to the analysis unit, wherein the at least one further sensor is a vibration sensor (Hay, col. 16, ll. 1-16, “accelerometers”), sound sensor, or a camera sensitive in a visible spectral range (Hay, col. 21, ll. 39-43, “FIG. 16 shows both measurements at the nose (upper curve) and chest (lower curve) being simultaneously captured through the combination of optical and with thermal imagery.”), wherein the analysis unit is configured to determine at least one further physiological parameter of the person based on information from the further sensor (Hay, col. 5, l. 55 - col. 6, ll. 5, “The data stream may be presented in real time as a simple display of respiration rate, pulse rate, etc., or it may be archived for later review.”; col. 14, ll. 4-15, “Ratio or comparisons of color changes or amplitudes of certain wavelength can also be used. For example, it may be useful to locate a pixel that changes in intensity from blue to red. This could be indicative of certain properties of interest. An example would be pulsing of blood.”).
Regarding claim 22, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 21, wherein the analysis unit comprises a memory (Hay, col. 7, ll. 59, “memory”) configured to store a time course of the physiological parameter and the further physiological parameter (Hay, col. 5, l. 55 - col. 6, ll. 5; “The data stream may be presented in real time as a simple display of respiration rate, pulse rate, etc., or it may be archived for later review.”; col. 14, ll. 4-15, “Ratio or comparisons of color changes or amplitudes of certain wavelength can also be used. For example, it may be useful to locate a pixel that changes in intensity from blue to red. This could be indicative of certain properties of interest. An example would be pulsing of blood.”; col. 21, ll. 27-42, “Thermal imaging along with this method can determine flow by measuring the temperature change around the nasal area and face.”).
Regarding claim 23, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 20, wherein the analysis unit is configured (Hay, col. 5, ll. 56-57, “using a processor”) to compare the physiological parameter with a predetermined limit value (Hay, col. 21, ll. 54-66, “The system could use that information to learn optimal sleep situations including temperature and temperature cycles to automatically adjust the thermostat to maximize sleep quality, comfort, and sleep conditions. The user may indicate the aggressiveness of the sleep-to-thermostat control. The user may have various zones within the home controlled separately based on different sleep monitors. The user may program ranges within which the sleep device may adjust the thermostat.”).
Regarding claim 24, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 20, wherein the analysis unit comprises a transmitter configured to transmit the physiological parameter to a network (Hay, col. 6, ll. 1-14, “The output signal may be in any convenient analog or digital format, e.g., 0-5 V, 4-20 mA, and may be part of a network, wireless network, mesh network, or other control and automation system operating on any convenient protocol, e.g, HART, WirelessHART, ZigBee, IEEE 802.15.4, etc.”; col. 21, ll. 20-22, “uploaded to the cloud or to a server”) or to a mobile device (Hay, col. 22, l. 14, “a mobile device, smart phone, laptop”).
Regarding claim 26, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 24, wherein the mobile device is configured to compare the physiological parameters to predetermined limits (Hay, col. 21, ll. 54-66, “The system could use that information to learn optimal sleep situations including temperature and temperature cycles to automatically adjust the thermostat to maximize sleep quality, comfort, and sleep conditions. The user may indicate the aggressiveness of the sleep-to-thermostat control. The user may have various zones within the home controlled separately based on different sleep monitors. The user may program ranges within which the sleep device may adjust the thermostat.”).
Regarding claim 28, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 18, wherein the sleeping or reclining furniture is a bed, and wherein the at least one thermal imaging camera is arranged on a headboard of the bed (Choi, FIG. 2).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 18.
Regarding claim 31, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 18, further comprising:
an electromotive furniture drive with adjustment drives (Choi, par. 34, “an electric cylinder 141 for adjusting the inclination of the mat portion 160 and an actuator 142 for actuating the electric cylinder 141.”) configured to (Choi, par. 4, “control unit”) adjust furniture parts (Choi, par. 34, “mat portion 160”), wherein the electromotive furniture drive is configured to control (Choi, par. 4, “control unit”) the adjustment drives (Choi, par. 34, “The area shown in FIG. 3 is only one example, and the inclination of each area can be adjusted by dividing the area into a plurality of areas. 3 includes an electric cylinder 141 for adjusting the inclination of the mat portion 160 and an actuator 142 for actuating the electric cylinder 141.”), wherein the analysis unit (Hay, col. 5, ll. 56-57, “using a processor”) is coupled to [
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 18.
Regarding claim 32, Hay teaches a method for detecting physiological parameters of a person in a sleeping or reclining furniture, the method comprising:
capturing a sequence of images from a thermal imaging camera (Hay, col. 21, l. 30, “infrared camera”; Abstract, “acquiring video files”) of the person located in the sleeping or reclining furniture (Hay, col. 21, ll. 27-42, “Thermal imaging along with this method can determine flow by measuring the temperature change around the nasal area and face.”; Determining a change requires at least two thermal images to determine a change between the images.);
identifying image areas of the sequence of images in which a temperature can be associated with a body temperature of the person (Hay, col. 21, ll. 27-42, “nasal area and face.”; The nasal are and face are part of the body.); and
detecting a change in the temperature or a position of the identified image areas over time (Hay, col. 21, ll. 27-42, “Thermal imaging along with this method can determine flow by measuring the temperature change around the nasal area and face.”), the method further comprising steps substantially corresponding to steps recited in claim 18.
Claims 32 is rejected for the same reasons for obviousness provided for claim 18.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka and in further view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20190099009 to Connor (hereinafter “Connor”).
Regarding claim 25, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 24, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Connor.
Connor teaches wherein the transmitter is configured to wirelessly transmit the physiological parameter to the network or to the mobile device via a WLAN or Bluetooth transmission link (Connor, par. 125, “Bluetooth, WiFi, Zigbee”; id., “transmit and receive data to and from a home appliance and/or home control system; transmit and receive data to and from a mobile electronic device such as a cellular phone, mobile phone, smart phone, electronic tablet; transmit and receive data to and from a separate wearable device such as a smart watch or electronically-functional eyewear; transmit and receive data to and from the internet”).
Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka is analogous to the claimed invention for the reasons provided above. Hay further discloses monitoring a person sleeping in a bed using a ZigBee communication protocol (Hay, col. 6, l. 14). Thus, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka shows that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a wireless protocol to transmit sleep data over a network or to a mobile device, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters. Connor discloses monitoring persons sleeping in a bed using Zigbee, WiFi (i.e., a type of WLAN) or Bluetooth protocols (see Connor at par. 125). Thus, Connor shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a WLAN or Bluetooth protocol to transmit sleep data over a network or to a mobile device, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add WiFi and/or Bluetooth communication protocols/modules as disclosed by Connor to the sleep monitoring system disclosed by Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka to thereby transmit physiological parameters over a network or to a mobile device, such as a smart phone, using WLAN or Bluetooth. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of making the system compatible with a larger number of devices by using communication protocols commonly found on smartphones and other mobile devices.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka and in further view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2018/0341818 to Steffanson et al. (hereinafter “Steffanson”).
Regarding claim 27, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 18, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Steffanson.
Steffanson teaches wherein the at least one thermal imaging camera has a detection angle range of at least 60° (Steffanson, par. 152, “the imaging apparatus (e.g., the thermal camera (175)) has a field of view (capturing viewing angle) of 90 degrees or more. When such an imaging apparatus is used, a symmetrical orientation of the image apparatus (e.g., the thermal camera (175)) fixation within the enclosure in an orthogonal room can result in substantially full room coverage or coverage of a reasonable proportion of the room.”).
Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka is analogous to the claimed invention for the reasons provided above. Steffanson discloses a thermal camera that monitors a person sleeping (Steffanson, par. 109) and is in communication with a mobile device/smartphone (Steffanson, par. 89) where the thermal camera has a detection field of view of 90 or more degrees (Steffanson, par. 152). Thus, Steffanson shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use thermal cameras with fields of view of 60 or more degrees, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase the field of view of a thermal camera disclosed by Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka by replacing the camera with one as disclosed by Steffanson having a 90 degree or more field of view to thereby analyze thermal images in a 90 degree field of view over a bed, thereby monitoring the area of the patient with a 90 degree field of view. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of ensuring a person’s full body is captured by the thermal camera being positioned on the headboard of their bed.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka and in further view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20170143565 to Childs et al. (hereinafter “Childs”).
Regarding claim 29, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the sleeping or reclining furniture of claim 18, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Childs.
Childs teaches wherein the sleeping or reclining furniture is a nursing bed (Childs, par. 23, “hospital bed”), wherein the at least one thermal imaging camera comprises at least two thermal [
Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka is analogous to the claimed invention for the reasons provided above. Hay further discloses “Multiple cameras can be used for multiple detection schemes” (Hay, col. 15, ll. 59-60). Choi further discloses a thermal camera attached to a headboard (Choi, FIG. 2). Thus, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use multiple cameras including a thermal camera to monitor a person’s sleep, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters. Childs discloses a sensing system for monitoring a patient in a hospital bed (Childs, FIG. 1) that includes a thermal camera, multiple cameras used to localize a patient’s position, and a plurality of thermal sensors on the side rails of the bed and a headboard (see Childs at pars. 98, 123 and 141). Thus, Childs shows that it was known in the art to use multiple thermal sensors positioned on side rails of a bed and a headboard, to monitor a patient, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add additional thermal cameras to the system disclosed by Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka, arranged on siderails as disclosed by Childs to thereby monitor a person in their own bed at home or a hospital/nursing bed using a combination of a headboard-mounted thermal camera and thermal cameras arranged on siderails of the bed. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of having greater coverage of the person in their bed to localize their position, being able to determine more types of postures and motions of the person including laying on their left side or right side, and being able to determine motion more accurately.
Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, in further view of Tanaka, in further view of ThermalWrist: Smartphone Thermal Camera Correction Using a Wristband Sensor to Yoshikawa et al. (hereinafter “Yoshikawa”), and in further view of Steffanson.
Regarding claim 33, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka teaches the method of claim 32, further comprising:
coupling a display device with an analysis unit (Hay, col. 22, ll. 13-15, “the interface may be adapted to a mobile device, smart phone, laptop, or a central location such as a nurse’s station.”; Smart phones and laptops include displays.) connected to the thermal imaging camera (Hay, col. 6, ll. 39-42, “The user interface may display real-time information (video and graphs) to display respiration rate, cessation of breathing events, the actual respiration waveform, and motion events.”), but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Yoshikawa.
Yoshikawa teaches displaying an image of the thermal imaging camera on the display device (Yoshikawa, Figure 1, “Thermal Image”);
selecting an area of the person's body in the image (Yoshikawa, pg. 5, Figure 1, “Reference” selects the hand area and “Target” selects the face in an upper body area of the person.) and detecting a body temperature of the person in that body area (Yoshikawa, pg. 8, section 3.5) using a thermometer (Yoshikawa, pg. 5, Figure 1, “Wristband Temperature”);
selecting a body region on the image displayed on the display device and inputting the body temperature (Yoshikawa, pg. 5, Figure 1, “Offset Correction”) on an input device [“Wristband Temperature”; The wristband sensor has two functions: acquiring a temperature, and outputting a signal representing that temperature. Thus, the wristband sensor functions both as a thermometer and as an input device that inputs the body temperature reading into the offset correction. Identifying the hand and face regions selects those body regions.); and
calibrating a temperature scale for images of the thermal imaging camera based on the selected body area and the inputted body temperature (Yoshikawa, pg. 2, “First, we obtain a thermal image including a reference point (a wrist or a palm) of which absolute temperature is measured by a wearable device (a wristband sensor). Second, we estimate the offset at the reference point by comparing the temperature measured by the thermal camera and the wristband sensor. Finally, ThermalWrist corrects temperature in the thermal image by adding the offset to all the pixels.”).
Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka is analogous to the claimed invention for the reasons provided above. Hay further discloses a thermal camera that acquires thermal images of a person’s body while they are sleeping to determine various parameters including body temperature, where derived parameters are output on an interface of a smartphone or other mobile device (Hay, col. 22, l. 14; FIG. 17). Thus, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermal camera as a thermometer to monitor sleep, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters. Yoshikawa discloses a thermal camera that acquires thermal images of a person’s body to determine various parameters including body temperature, where a wrist worn-sensor (thermometer) is attached to the person to calibrate the thermal image data (Yoshikawa, pg. 5, Figure 1). Thus, Yoshikawa shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a thermometer to calibrate a thermal camera to determine body temperature, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the thermometer and temperature calibration process disclosed by Yoshikawa to the sleep monitoring system disclosed by Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, and in further view of Tanaka to thereby acquire thermal images of a person and use a thermometer to acquire body temperature data to calibrate the temperature values of the thermal images. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of having obtaining more accurate temperature values and thereby a higher quality assessment of sleep or ailment.
Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, in further view of Tanaka, and in further view of Yoshikawa does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Steffanson.
Steffanson teaches an input device coupled to the display device (Steffanson, par. 30 “A mobile device (117), such as a smartphone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, or a personal media player, has a mobile application installed therein to communicate with the thermal camera assembly (101) and/or the server (113) for the calibration, setup, and/or the usage of the thermal imaging system.”; par. 50, “the mobile application may provide a display of the thermal image captured by the thermal camera assembly and provide instructions”; par. 64, “touch screen of the mobile device”; par. 26, “Based on the user inputs and/or the thermal images collected during the installation/calibration, the system computes configuration parameters, such as the mounting height of the thermal imaging assembly, a ratio or mapping between a size in the image and a size of a person/object in the monitored area, and the identification of POIs in images captured by the thermal camera.”; pars. 90-91, “4. optionally, configure the mobile device (117) to perform at least some of the functions of the server (113) in storing and/or processing the calibration information”).
Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, in further view of Tanaka, and in further view of Yoshikawa is analogous to the claimed invention for the reasons provided above. Hay further discloses an interface provided on a smartphone (Hay, col. 22, l. 14; FIG. 17) and using “any convenient protocol” (Hay, col. 6, l. 13). Thus, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, in further view of Tanaka, and in further view of Yoshikawa shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor thermal images of an environment including a person using a wireless communication protocol to couple devices in a sleep monitoring system, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters. Steffanson discloses a thermal camera that monitors a person sleeping (Steffanson, par. 109) and is in communication with a smartphone using Bluetooth (Steffanson, par. 89) that includes an input device (e.g., touch screen) coupled to a display for receiving input to calibrate the camera (e.g., height of the person or mounting height of the camera. See par. 24). Thus, Steffanson shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to monitor thermal images of an environment including a person using a Bluetooth connection to wirelessly couple a thermal camera and a smartphone to use the smartphone as an input device for calibrating the thermal camera for its specific environment, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, integrating thermal cameras into sleep monitoring to analyze physiological parameters.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a wireless connection and input device as disclosed by Steffanson between the thermal camera, thermometer, and smartphone of Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, in further view of Tanaka, and in further view of Yoshikawa to thereby wirelessly couple the thermometer to the smartphone using a Bluetooth module/chip and the smartphone as an input device to input temperature calibration data on the smartphone’s display and/or another display coupled to the smartphone, calibrate the thermal images acquired from the thermal camera, and display monitoring images on the smartphone. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of easily calibrating the thermal images for accurate results and making the system compatible with a larger number of devices by using a communication protocol commonly found on smartphones and other mobile devices.
Regarding claim 34, Hay in view of Choi, in further view of Kim, in further view of Vanderpohl, in further view of Tanaka, in further view of Yoshikawa, and in further view of Steffanson teaches the method of claim 33, wherein the display device and the input device are part of a mobile device (Hay, col. 22, l. 14, “smart phone”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm EST.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/RYAN P POTTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 https://web.archive.org/web/20171213081916/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/message
Prosecution Insights