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 Amendment
The amendment filed 12/04/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/04/2025.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-8 and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 9, 11-17, and 19 of copending Application No. 17/676303 in view of Ribble et al. (US 20130317399 A1, as cited by applicant’s IDS filed 12/27/2023), hereinafter Ribble.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 1, app no. 17/676303 discloses the limitations of claim 1 (Claim 1: “A patient support apparatus comprising a plurality of load cells, a frame supported on the load cells, a mattress including a plurality of inflatable zones positioned on the frame, the mattress and frame cooperating to direct any patient load through the mattress and frame to the load cells, a plurality of air pressure sensors, each air pressure sensor measuring the pressure in a respective inflatable zone of the mattress, and a control system including a controller, the controller operable to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors, process the signals to identify, motion of the patient that does not result in movement of the patient's position relative to the frame based on transient changes in the signals indicative of an external transient load applied to the patient, the motion of the patient being further processed to characterize the nature of the patient motion and, based on the characterization of the patient motion, automatically update a patient record to reflect the characterization of the patient motion.”). While the claim language specifies that the “motion of the patient that does not result in lateral movement of the patient's position relative to the frame based on transient changes in the signals” as opposed to “based on transient changes in the signals, motion of the patient that does not result in relative movement of the patient relative to the frame,” disclosed by claim 1, the claim language of application 17/676303 clarifies the direction of motion of in claim 9. Application 17/676303 fails to disclose “based on the characterization of the patient motion, automatically determine if the patient motion is a high shear motion or a low shear motion.”
Ribble discloses a patient support apparatus (Fig 3) wherein based on the characterization of the patient motion ([0038]: “friction and shear can be determined using a combination of the ultrasonic sensor, 3D image sensor, and/or image capture device and the pressure sensor and/or force sensor sensing the amount of pressure and force on the topper TP1 and the vertical and horizontal components of the movement of a person's body with respect to the surface.”), automatically determining if the patient motion is a high shear motion or a low shear motion (Table 1 column 6 “Friction and Shear”).
As application 17/676303 discloses “characterizing patient motion”, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the characterization of patient to include high and low shear motion as disclosed by Ribble in order to improve user outcomes by allowing for the identification and treatment of skin damage ([0022]: “is appropriate upon detecting or predicting the occurrence of such a condition, and implement an intervention to address those factors and protect the person's skin from damage.”).
Application 17/676303 further discloses the limitations of claims 2 (claim 2), 3 (claim 3), 4 (claim 4), 5 (claim 5), and 6 (claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, application 17/676303 discloses wherein the potential patient motion is characterized as a self-offloading motion in which a patient readjusts their position on the mattress without any external influence (claim 7). The copending application fails to disclose that the controller is configured to determine that the patient motion is the low shear motion.
Ribble further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine that the patient motion is the low shear motion if the patient motion is characterized as a self-offloading motion in which a patient readjusts their position on the mattress without any external influence (Table 1 column 6.3: “No apparent problem (moves in bed and in chair independently”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further specify that the “potential patient motion” is low shear motion as disclosed by Ribble in order to expand the data provided to the user about their movement classification.
Regarding claim 8, application 17/676303 discloses wherein the potential patient motion is characterized as a patient lateral motion in which a patient readjusts their position on the mattress without any external influence (claim 9).
Ribble further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine that the patient motion is the high shear motion if the patient motion is characterized as a lateral motion in which a patient readjusts their position by dragging themselves on the patient support apparatus (Table 1 column 6.1 - 6.2: “slides down in bed or chair”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further specify that the “potential patient motion” is low shear motion as disclosed by Ribble in order to expand the data provided to the user about their movement classification.
Regarding claim 12, application 17/676303 discloses a system comprising a patient support surface including a plurality of inflatable zones, a plurality of load cells supporting the patient support surface, a plurality of air pressure sensors, each pressure sensor measuring the pressure in a respective inflatable zone of the patient support surface, and a controller configured to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors, process the signals to identify motion of the patient that, based on transient changes in the signals indicative of an external transient load applied to the patient, does not result in lateral movement of the patient relative to the frame, the motion of the patient being further processed to characterize the nature of the patient motion (claim 11). Application 17/676303 fails to disclose based on the characterization of the patient motion, automatically determining if the patient motion is a high shear motion or a low shear motion.
Ribble discloses a patient support apparatus (Fig 3) wherein based on the characterization of the patient motion ([0038]: “friction and shear can be determined using a combination of the ultrasonic sensor, 3D image sensor, and/or image capture device and the pressure sensor and/or force sensor sensing the amount of pressure and force on the topper TP1 and the vertical and horizontal components of the movement of a person's body with respect to the surface.”), automatically determining if the patient motion is a high shear motion or a low shear motion (Table 1 column 6 “Friction and Shear”).
As application 17/676303 discloses “characterizing patient motion”, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify the characterization of patient to include high and low shear motion as disclosed by Ribble in order to improve user outcomes by allowing for the identification and treatment of skin shear ([0022]: “is appropriate upon detecting or predicting the occurrence of such a condition, and implement an intervention to address those factors and protect the person's skin from damage.”).
Application 17/676303 discloses claim 13 ( claim 12), claim 14 (claim 13), claim 15 (claim 14), claim 16 (claim 15), and claim 17 (claim 16).
Regarding claim 18, application 17/676303 discloses wherein the potential patient motion is characterized as a self-offloading motion in which a patient readjusts their position on the mattress without any external influence (claim 17). The copending application fails to disclose that the controller is configured to determine that the patient motion is the low shear motion.
Ribble further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine that the patient motion is the low shear motion if the patient motion is characterized as a self-offloading motion in which a patient readjusts their position on the mattress without any external influence (Table 1 column 6.3: “No apparent problem (moves in bed and in chair independently”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further specify that the “potential patient motion” is low shear motion as disclosed by Ribble in order to expand the data provided to the user about their movement classification.
Regarding claim 19, application 17/676303 discloses wherein the potential patient motion is characterized as a patient lateral motion in which a patient readjusts their position on the mattress without any external influence (claim 19).
Ribble further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine that the patient motion is the high shear motion if the patient motion is characterized as a lateral motion in which a patient readjusts their position by dragging themselves on the patient support apparatus (Table 1 column 6.1 - 6.2: “slides down in bed or chair”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further specify that the “potential patient motion” is low shear motion as disclosed by Ribble in order to expand the data provided to the user about their movement classification.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demirli et al. (US 20240342030 A1), hereinafter Demirli, in view of Ribble.
Regarding claim 1, Demirli discloses a patient support apparatus (abstract) comprising a plurality of load cells ([0012]: “The force sensors include load cells”), a frame supported on the load cells ([0004]: “A support platform supports the mattress. The support platform includes legs. Force sensors are coupled to the legs.”), a mattress including a plurality of inflatable zones positioned on the frame ([0015]: “A mattress includes first and second air bladders positioned on first and second sides”), the mattress and frame cooperating to direct any patient load through the mattress and frame to the load cells ([0015]: “The force sensors are configured to sense load applied to each leg”), a plurality of air pressure sensors ([0004]: “pressure sensor”), each air pressure sensor measuring the pressure in a respective inflatable zone of the mattress ([0057]: “monitor the air pressure in the chambers 114A and 114B of the bed 112”), and a control system including a controller ([0067]: “control circuitry”), the controller configured to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors, process the signals to identify ([0067]: “information detected by the bed (e.g., motion information) is processed by control circuitry”), based on transient changes in the signals, motion of the patient that, that, based on transient changes in the signals, is indicative of an external transient load applied to the patient ([0073]: “the control circuitry 334 can identify a heart rate or respiratory rate for the user 308 to identify that the increase in pressure is due to a person sitting, laying, or otherwise resting on the bed 302 rather than an inanimate object (such as a suitcase) having been placed on the bed 302.”, [0052]: “if the detected pressure increases above a specified threshold (so as to indicate that a person or other object above a certain weight is positioned on the bed 112)…. can distinguish between the user being present on the bed and another object (e.g., a suit case) being placed upon the bed.”, wherein the system distinguishes between the patient and an external load), does not result in lateral movement of the patient relative to the frame ([0057]: “If the user on the bed 112 is not moving, the air pressure changes in the air chamber 114A or 114B can be relatively minimal, and can be attributable to respiration and/or heartbeat. When the user on the bed 112 is moving, however, the air pressure in the mattress can fluctuate by a much larger amount. Thus, the pressure signals generated by the pressure transducer 146 and received by the processor 136 can be filtered and indicated as corresponding to motion, heartbeat, or respiration.”), the motion of the patient being further processed to characterize the nature of the patient motion ([0057]: “indicated as corresponding to motion, heartbeat, or respiration.”).
Demirli fails to disclose based on the wherein based on the characterization of the patient motion, automatically determining if the patient motion is a high shear motion or a low shear motion.
Ribble discloses a patient support apparatus (Fig 3) wherein based on the characterization of the patient motion ([0038]: “friction and shear can be determined using a combination of the ultrasonic sensor, 3D image sensor, and/or image capture device and the pressure sensor and/or force sensor sensing the amount of pressure and force on the topper TP1 and the vertical and horizontal components of the movement of a person's body with respect to the surface.”), automatically determining if the patient motion is a high shear motion or a low shear motion (Table 1 column 6 “Friction and Shear”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the patient support apparatus disclosed by Demirli to include the characterization of high or low shear motion as disclosed by Ribble in order to enable treatment of patients at risk of developing skin tears due to shear motion (Ribble [0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Demirli further discloses wherein the controller is configured to monitor the energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the air pressure sensors and compare the change in total energy measured by the load cells and air pressure sensors to determine if external energy has acted on the patient support apparatus ([0052]: " increase in pressure as an indication that the user is present on the bed 112. As another example, the processor 136 can determine that the user is present on the bed 112 if the detected pressure increases above a specified threshold… the processor 136 can identify an increase in pressure in combination with detected slight, rhythmic fluctuations in pressure as corresponding to the user being present on the bed 112. The presence of rhythmic fluctuations can be identified as being caused by respiration or heart rhythm (or both) of the user. The detection of respiration or a heartbeat can distinguish between the user being present on the bed and another object (e.g., a suit case) being placed upon the bed."), and, if a change in total energy measured is indicative that external energy has acted on the patient support apparatus, utilize the resulting change in total energy to modify the characterization of the patient motion that is used to update the patient profile ([0052]: “distinguish between the user being present on the bed and another object (e.g., a suit case) being placed upon the bed.").
Regarding claim 3, Demirli further discloses wherein the transient changes in the signals are indicative of motion of a least a portion of the patient in a vertical direction ([0056]: “can also be configured to determine other characteristics of a user based on the received pressure signal, such as blood pressure, tossing and turning movements, rolling movements, limb movements, weight, the presence or lack of presence of a user, and/or the identity of the user.”, wherein tossing, turning, limb movements, and getting on or off the bed may all be indicative of movement in a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 4, Demirli further discloses wherein the controller is operable to calculate the work done by the patient in the vertical direction to characterize the patient motion ([0066]: “detect movement, including user presence, user motion, user respiration, user weight, and user heart rate”). f. Regarding claim 5, Demirli further discloses wherein the controller is configured to compare the air pressure sensor signal for each of two adjacent zones and use the relative changes in the pressure in the adjacent zones during a potential patient movement event to confirm the characterization of the patient motion ([0013]: “The pressure in the first air chamber is compared to a combined force of the first set of force sensors. The pressure in the second air chamber is compared to a combined force of the second set of force sensors. A detected pressure in either the first air chamber or the second air chamber and a detected force on the corresponding force sensors is associated with a presence of a specified user on either the first side of the bed or the second side of the bed.”).
Regarding claim 6, Demirli further discloses wherein the controller is configured to monitor the energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the air pressure sensors and compare the change in total energy measured by the load cells and air pressure sensors to determine if external energy has acted on the patient support apparatus ([0052]: " increase in pressure as an indication that the user is present on the bed 112. As another example, the processor 136 can determine that the user is present on the bed 112 if the detected pressure increases above a specified threshold… the processor 136 can identify an increase in pressure in combination with detected slight, rhythmic fluctuations in pressure as corresponding to the user being present on the bed 112. The presence of rhythmic fluctuations can be identified as being caused by respiration or heart rhythm (or both) of the user. The detection of respiration or a heartbeat can distinguish between the user being present on the bed and another object (e.g., a suit case) being placed upon the bed."), and, if a change in total energy measured is indicative that external energy has acted on the patient support apparatus, utilize the resulting change in total energy to modify the characterization of the patient motion that is used to update the patient profile ([0052]: “distinguish between the user being present on the bed and another object (e.g., a suit case) being placed upon the bed.").
Regarding claim 7, Ribble further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine that the patient motion is the low shear motion if the patient motion is characterized as a self-offloading motion in which a patient readjusts their position on the mattress without any external influence (Table 1 column 6.3).
Regarding claim 8, Ribble further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine that the patient motion is the high shear motion if the patient motion is characterized as a lateral motion in which a patient readjusts their position by dragging themselves on the patient support apparatus (Table 1 column 6.1 - 6.2).
Regarding claim 9, Demirli further discloses wherein the center of gravity of the patient changes in an x-y direction due to the patient motion (([0056]: “can also be configured to determine other characteristics of a user based on the received pressure signal, such as blood pressure, tossing and turning movements, rolling movements, limb movements, weight, the presence or lack of presence of a user, and/or the identity of the user.”, wherein when the user turns or rolls, their center of gravity will change)
Regarding claim 11, Demirli further discloses wherein there is a dampened oscillation in a z direction, and wherein the controller is configured to determine that the center of gravity of the patient changes in an x-y direction due to the patient motion (([0056]: “can also be configured to determine other characteristics of a user based on the received pressure signal, such as blood pressure, tossing and turning movements, rolling movements, limb movements, weight, the presence or lack of presence of a user, and/or the identity of the user.”, wherein when the user turns or rolls, their center of gravity will change).
Regarding claim 12, Demirli discloses a system comprising a patient support surface (abstract), including a plurality of inflatable zones ([0015]: “A mattress includes first and second air bladders positioned on first and second sides”), a plurality of load cells supporting the patient support surface ([0012]: “The force sensors include load cells”, [0015]: “The force sensors are configured to sense load applied to each leg”), a plurality of air pressure sensors ([0057]: “air pressure sensors”), each pressure sensor measuring the pressure in a respective inflatable zone of the patient support surface ([0057]: “monitor the air pressure in the chambers 114A and 114B of the bed 112”), and a controller ([0067]: “control circuitry”), configured to receive a separate signal from each of the plurality of load cells and each of the plurality of air pressure sensors ([0067]: “information detected by the bed (e.g., motion information) is processed by control circuitry”), process the signals to identify motion of the patient that, based on transient changes in the signals indicative of an external transient load applied to the patient, does not result in lateral movement of the patient relative to the frame ([0057]: “If the user on the bed 112 is not moving, the air pressure changes in the air chamber 114A or 114B can be relatively minimal, and can be attributable to respiration and/or heartbeat. When the user on the bed 112 is moving, however, the air pressure in the mattress can fluctuate by a much larger amount. Thus, the pressure signals generated by the pressure transducer 146 and received by the processor 136 can be filtered and indicated as corresponding to motion, heartbeat, or respiration.” [0073]: “the control circuitry 334 can identify a heart rate or respiratory rate for the user 308 to identify that the increase in pressure is due to a person sitting, laying, or otherwise resting on the bed 302 rather than an inanimate object (such as a suitcase) having been placed on the bed 302.”, [0052]: “if the detected pressure increases above a specified threshold (so as to indicate that a person or other object above a certain weight is positioned on the bed 112)…. can distinguish between the user being present on the bed and another object (e.g., a suit case) being placed upon the bed.”, wherein the system distinguished between the patient and an external load), the motion of the patient being further processed to characterize the nature of the patient motion ([0057]: “motion, heartbeat, or respiration.”)
Demirli fails to disclose based on the wherein based on the characterization of the patient motion, automatically determining if any of the patient motion is a high shear motion or a low shear motion.
Ribble discloses a patient support apparatus (Fig 3) characterization of the patient motion ([0038]: “friction and shear can be determined using a combination of the ultrasonic sensor, 3D image sensor, and/or image capture device and the pressure sensor and/or force sensor sensing the amount of pressure and force on the topper TP1 and the vertical and horizontal components of the movement of a person's body with respect to the surface.”), automatically determining if the patient motion is a high shear motion or a low shear motion (Table 1 column 6 “Friction and Shear”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the patient support apparatus disclosed by Demirli to include the characterization of high or low shear motion as disclosed by Ribble in order to enable treatment of patients at risk of developing skin tears due to shear motion (Ribble [0052]).
Regarding claim 13, Demirli further discloses wherein the controller is configured to monitor the energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the air pressure sensors and compare the change in total energy measured by the load cells and air pressure sensors to determine if external energy has acted on the patient support apparatus ([0052]: " increase in pressure as an indication that the user is present on the bed 112. As another example, the processor 136 can determine that the user is present on the bed 112 if the detected pressure increases above a specified threshold… the processor 136 can identify an increase in pressure in combination with detected slight, rhythmic fluctuations in pressure as corresponding to the user being present on the bed 112. The presence of rhythmic fluctuations can be identified as being caused by respiration or heart rhythm (or both) of the user. The detection of respiration or a heartbeat can distinguish between the user being present on the bed and another object (e.g., a suit case) being placed upon the bed."), and, if a change in total energy measured is indicative that external energy has acted on the patient support apparatus, utilize the resulting change in total energy to modify the characterization of the patient motion that is used to update the patient profile ([0052]: “distinguish between the user being present on the bed and another object (e.g., a suit case) being placed upon the bed.").
Regarding claim 14, Demirli further discloses wherein the transient changes in the signals are indicative of motion of a least a portion of the patient in a vertical direction ([0056]: “can also be configured to determine other characteristics of a user based on the received pressure signal, such as blood pressure, tossing and turning movements, rolling movements, limb movements, weight, the presence or lack of presence of a user, and/or the identity of the user.”, wherein tossing, turning, limb movements, and getting on or off the bed may all be indicative of movement in a vertical direction).
Regarding claim 15, Demirli further discloses wherein the controller is operable to calculate the work done by the patient in the vertical direction to characterize the patient motion ([0066]: “detect movement, including user presence, user motion, user respiration, user weight, and user heart rate”). f. Regarding claim 16, Demirli further discloses wherein the controller is configured to compare the air pressure sensor signal for each of two adjacent zones and use the relative changes in the pressure in the adjacent zones during a potential patient movement event to confirm the characterization of the patient motion ([0013]: “The pressure in the first air chamber is compared to a combined force of the first set of force sensors. The pressure in the second air chamber is compared to a combined force of the second set of force sensors. A detected pressure in either the first air chamber or the second air chamber and a detected force on the corresponding force sensors is associated with a presence of a specified user on either the first side of the bed or the second side of the bed.”).
Regarding claim 17, Demirli further discloses wherein the controller is configured to monitor the energy detected by each of the load cells and each of the air pressure sensors and compare the change in total energy measured by the load cells and air pressure sensors to determine if external energy has acted on the patient support apparatus ([0052]: " increase in pressure as an indication that the user is present on the bed 112. As another example, the processor 136 can determine that the user is present on the bed 112 if the detected pressure increases above a specified threshold… the processor 136 can identify an increase in pressure in combination with detected slight, rhythmic fluctuations in pressure as corresponding to the user being present on the bed 112. The presence of rhythmic fluctuations can be identified as being caused by respiration or heart rhythm (or both) of the user. The detection of respiration or a heartbeat can distinguish between the user being present on the bed and another object (e.g., a suit case) being placed upon the bed."), and, if a change in total energy measured is indicative that external energy has acted on the patient support apparatus, utilize the resulting change in total energy to modify the characterization of the patient motion that is used to update the patient profile ([0052]: “distinguish between the user being present on the bed and another object (e.g., a suit case) being placed upon the bed.").
Regarding claim 18, Ribble further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine that the patient motion is the low shear motion if the patient motion is characterized as a self-offloading motion in which a patient readjusts their position on the mattress without any external influence (Table 1 column 6.3).
Regarding claim 19, Ribble further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine that the patient motion is the high shear motion if the patient motion is characterized as a lateral motion in which a patient readjusts their position by dragging themselves on the patient support apparatus (Table 1 column 6.1 - 6.2).
Regarding claim 20, Demirli further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the center of gravity of the patient changes in an x-y direction due to the patient motion (([0056]: “can also be configured to determine other characteristics of a user based on the received pressure signal, such as blood pressure, tossing and turning movements, rolling movements, limb movements, weight, the presence or lack of presence of a user, and/or the identity of the user.”, wherein when the user turns or rolls, their center of gravity will change)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demirli in view of Ribble in further view of Wiggermann (US 20190099310 A1).
Demirli as modified by Ribble discloses the patient support apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a momentary change in force is determined by measuring an integral of an absolute value of a total of all forces on the load cells minus the patient's weight, and wherein if the integral is less than a threshold, the patient motion is determined to be the high shear motion.
Wiggermann discloses a patient support method ([0006]: “advising the use of lift assist equipment for repositioning an occupant of an occupant support”) wherein a momentary change in force is determined by measuring an integral of an absolute value of a total of all forces on the load cells minus the patient's weight ([0087]: "an autonomous repositioning will correspond to the weight integral minus the load integral having a value of zero. This is because any positive load fluctuations (load greater than weight as a result of the patient jostling against the mattress) will balance out any negative load fluctuations (load less than weight as a result of the patient jostling against the mattress). "), and wherein if the integral is less than a threshold, the patient motion is determined to be the high shear motion ([0086]: "if the test at block 212 reveals that WM-LM is less than the lower limit, the method may branch to block 218 and report that the event is an autonomous patient repositioning (i.e. the patient repositioned himself)", consistent with the definition of high shear motion as lateral movement per applicant’s specification para [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the known method of calculating of high shear motion as disclosed by Demirli as modified by Ribble with the method disclosed by Wiggerman for the predictable result of identifying high shear motion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-8 of Remarks, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8 and 11-19 under the grounds of non-statutory double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in under grounds of a non-provisional rejection.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states on page 8 of applicant’s remarks that Demirli fails to disclose any structure that operates "to identify motion of the patient that, based on transient changes in the signals, is indicative of an external transient load applied to the patient that does not result in lateral movement of the patient relative to the frame.". However, Demirli discloses a structure to distinguish based on transient changes in the signals an external transient load (see rejection above). MPEP 2183 states that a prior art element is equivalent when (A) The prior art element performs the identical function specified in the claim in substantially the same way, and produces substantially the same results as the corresponding element disclosed in the specification. Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2000). As such, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kostic et al. (US 20210113401 A1) – discloses a method of distinguishing external transient loads
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 KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 ET.
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, Jaqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791