DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 3/13/2026. Claims 21, 28-32, 34-42 and 45-49 are pending. Claims 21, 28-32, 34-42 and 45-49 are rejected.
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21, 28-32, 34-42 and 45-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of US Patent 9,510,688. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the patent because the patent, in independent claims 1, 5, 8, and 14, describes an apparatus that includes a bed system which measures pressure values, then uses these values to determine, based on the comparison, whether a user of the air mattress system moved. These structures and functionality are substantially the same as that which is recited in the instant application, including recitation of a mattress with pressure sensors and a controller that determines if the first user has rolled over from the first support portion to the second support portion.
Claims 21, 28-32, 34-42 and 45-49 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of US Patent 11,571,346. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from the patent because the patent describes an apparatus with substantially the same structures as are recited in the instant application, including a first and second support portion, with sensors, and a controller, in which the apparatus of the patent will “determine if the first user has rolled over from the first support portion to the second support portion,” which is comparable to the instant application which recites “determine…if a first user has rolled over from the first support portion to the second support portion.”
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the recited claims can be found entirely within the subject matter of the claims of the patented claims. The claims of the instant Application are therefore fully encompassed by (and anticipated by) the claims of the patent regardless of the differing scope of the claims. Furthermore, to the degree to which the claims are different from the patented claims, the changes would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Applicant’s invention is allowable over the prior art. Applicant’s claims 21, 28-32, 34-42 and 45-47 are directed toward a technique in which certain data is discarded when a user rolls over from one side of the bed to a second side of the bed. The prior art, while it does disclose data analysis techniques it does not disclose this feature. Applicant’s claim limitations allow for data privacy functionality that is not found in the prior art. Applicant has amended the claims in a manner that overcomes the prior art.
Double patenting rejections are still pending in the application, as discussed above. Applicant’s remarks dated 3/13/26 state that terminal disclaimers have been filed in this application to overcome the double patenting rejections, however no terminal disclaimers have been received by the office; please resubmit terminal disclaimers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached on 571-270-3654. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights