DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 26 April 2026. Claims 1-2, 4-13 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “plurality of volume value” in line 12. Examiner recommends amending to –plurality of volume values—
-Claim 1 recites “the volume values” in line 15. Examiner recommends amending to –the plurality of volume values—
-Claim 1 recites “distribution of the volume values” in lines 14-15. Examiner recommends amending to –distribution of the plurality of volume values—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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(s) is/are:
-Claims 1 and 11 recite “sound receiving elements” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to receive an audio signal from an audio source. According to the specification the plurality of sound receiving elements includes a microphone [0014] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 1 and 11 recite “controller” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to extract a voiceprint of the audio signal. According to the specification the controller includes a digital signal processor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors that combine a core of the digital signal processor, a controller, a microcontroller, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), any other kind of integrated circuits, a state machine, a processor based on an advanced RISC machine (ARM) [0016] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 5 recites “wireless communication element” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to transmit the status notification signal to a mobile communication device. According to the specification the wireless communication element includes Bluetooth, the fifth-generation mobile communication technology, Wi-Fi, ZigBee [0021] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 7 recites “warning element” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to transmit a warning signal. According to the specification the warning element includes a light emitter and/or vibrator [0029] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 12 recites “first positioning element” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to obtain a first position of the bed body. According to the specification the first positioning element is a GPS module [0021] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 12 recites “second positioning element” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to obtain a second position of the mobile communication device. According to the specification the second positioning element has the same or similar structure to the first positioning device [0022] and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 1 recites “extract a plurality of volume value of the audio signal received by the plurality of sound receiving elements respectively” in lines 12-13. It is unclear whether the limitation requires a plurality of volume values for each audio signal because the limitation is followed by the statement of “respectively”. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 10 recites “based on stop of the sleep voiceprint and stopping receiving the audio signal” in line 9. It is unclear whether these “stop of the sleep voiceprint” and “stopping receiving the audio signal” are the same or different from the determination that the sleep voiceprint stops originally referenced in claim 10, line 6 and the step of stop receiving the audio referenced in claim 10, line 6 or separate steps. Further clarification should be provided.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Ribble (U.S. 20210045677).
Regarding Claim 1, Receveur teaches an intelligent bed, comprising:
a bed body [Fig. 1, element 40 (patient bed)];
a plurality of sound receiving elements [Fig. 1, elements 48 (microphones)], surroundingly arranged around the bed body at intervals and each configured to receive an audio signal from an audio source [0080; “an array of far-field microphones that may be carried by the frame”] and [0185; “The array of microphones may communicate voice commands received from the person to the at least one computer”];
a voiceprint database [0241]—reference to authorized user database, comprising a plurality of contextual voiceprints [0241]—reference to voice biometrics of authorized users stored in the database; and
a controller, coupled to the plurality of sound receiving elements and the voiceprint database and configured to:
extract a voiceprint of the audio signal received by the plurality of sound receiving elements [0134; “In this regard, circuitry 80 and controller 34 collectively or individually operate as an on-bed computer for processing of the voice inputs 70, 72 received by microphones 48 of bed 30 from the caregiver or patient.”];
determine whether the voiceprint of the audio signal is consistent with one of the plurality of contextual voiceprints [0241]—discloses comparing the voice input with the voice biometrics stored in the database; Receveur is silent on extract a plurality of volume value of the audio signal received by the plurality of sound receiving elements respectively; and determine a position of the audio source on the bed body according to a distribution of the volume values; and generate a status notification signal based on the position of the audio source on the bed body and the voiceprint of the audio signal being consistent with the one of the plurality of contextual voiceprints.
Ribble teaches extract a plurality of volume value of the audio signal received by the plurality of sound receiving elements respectively [Table 1] and [0057]; and
determine a position of the audio source on the bed body according to a distribution of the volume values [Table 1]—conclusion about patient location; and
generate a status notification signal based on the position of the audio source on the bed body and the voiceprint of the audio signal being consistent with the one of the plurality of contextual voiceprints [Fig. 16, element 164 (“characterize sound…noise…), and 200 (Alert caregiver)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize sound volume to indicate position as taught by Ribble to indicate a status of the patient as suggested by Receveur, as Receveur discusses the use of voice control for medical devices [Abstract] with Ribble because Ribble teaches characterizing sound including voice data by pattern matching to stored profile data in the memory [0070].
Regarding Claim 2, Receveur teaches wherein the plurality of sound receiving elements are arranged on an upper edge of the bed body [Fig. 1, elements 48 (microphones)]—depicted on upper portions of the edge of the frame of the bed, interpreted to be the handrails of the bed body or frame.
Regarding Claim 4, Receveur is silent on wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the position is located at an edge of the bed body; and generate the status notification signal based on the position being located at the edge of the bed body. Ribble teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the position is located at an edge of the bed body [0058]; and generate the status notification signal based on the position being located at the edge of the bed body [0058]—describing generation of an alert.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to track whether this patient is in relation to exiting the bed as taught by Ribble to indicate a notification as suggested by Receveur, as Receveur discusses the use bed exit alarms [0022] with Ribble because Ribble teaches ensuring that the patient does not fall out of the bed [0058].
Regarding Claim 5, Receveur teaches further comprising: a wireless communication element [0127]—reference to nurse call system communicating with the bed system via a universal collector or other unit having Bluetooth wireless communication, coupled to the controller and configured to transmit the status notification signal to a mobile communication device [0114; “mobile phone 22′ includes the patient ID in the wireless transmission 28′ to WAM 26 of bed 30 and the WAM 26 transmits the patient ID to bed controller 34 along with the bed command message. Controller … bed command message pertains.”]
Regarding Claim 7, Receveur teaches further comprising a warning element [0239; “nurse call system sends an alert message in this regard to mobile phone”], wherein the controller is further configured to: control the warning element to transmit a warning signal according to the status notification signal [0239; “If patient movement and fall are detected at block 314, the algorithm proceeds to block 316 to alert one or more caregivers of the fall via a nurse call system.”]—with further examples provided of alerts being sent via nurse call system to alert caregivers of a specific event. The warning element is interpreted to be an alert sent to a caregiver’s phone or receiving element such as the dome light or electronic whiteboard mentioned in [0239] due to the indefiniteness associated with the structure of the warning element as claimed.
Regarding Claim 8, Receveur is silent on wherein the plurality of contextual voiceprints comprise at least one of a cry voiceprint, a turnover voiceprint, a milk regurgitation voiceprint, a sleep voiceprint, or a play voiceprint. Ribble teaches wherein the plurality of contextual voiceprints comprise at least one of a cry voiceprint, a turnover voiceprint, a milk regurgitation voiceprint, a sleep voiceprint, or a play voiceprint [0070].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize voiceprints for the listed activities as taught by Ribble to indicate a status of the patient as suggested by Receveur, as Receveur discusses inputs for sleep modes [0252] with Ribble because Ribble teaches the use of this activity information based on sounds to execute subsequent steps to care for the patient [0065] and [0069]-[0071].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Ribble (U.S. 20210045677) and in further view of Greene (U.S. 10593184).
Regarding Claim 6, Receveur and Ribble are silent on wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a distance between the mobile communication device and the bed body is less than a preset distance value; and stop transmitting the status notification signal to the mobile communication device based on the distance being less than the preset distance value. Greene teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a distance between the mobile communication device and the bed body is less than a preset distance value [Col 18, lines 35-48]—description of establishing movement thresholds and these thresholds being less than threshold value; and stop transmitting the status notification signal to the mobile communication device based on the distance being less than the preset distance value [Fig. 5, elements 545 (determining…discomfort state) and loop back to element 505 (capture…stream)]—also depicted if the discomfort level is scored as “yes” an alert output is generated in element 555.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use assigned measurement threshold values as taught by Greene to identify different alarm states as suggested by Receveur, and Ribble as Receveur discusses the various instances involving position and distance related to alarms [Table 1] and Ribble which teaches alerting a caregiver in certain instances [0074] with Greene because Greene teaches these alarm systems to identify baby discomfort states [Col 19, lines 4-7].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Ribble (U.S. 20210045677) and in further view of Chae (U.S. 20210327417).
Regarding Claim 9, Receveur and Ribble are silent on wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the voiceprint of the audio signal is consistent with a cry voiceprint of the plurality of contextual voiceprints; and generate the status notification signal based on the voiceprint of the audio signal being consistent with the cry voiceprint and lasting for a period of time. Chae teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the voiceprint of the audio signal is consistent with a cry voiceprint of the plurality of contextual voiceprints; and generate the status notification signal based on the voiceprint of the audio signal being consistent with the cry voiceprint and lasting for a period of time [0152-0154]—where the status notification symbol is interpreted to be the information sent by the controller to activate the parenting assistance agent where the time information is collected and sent.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to characterize crying sounds as taught by Greene to include in the sound memory repository as suggested by Receveur, and Ribble as Receveur discusses a database of acceptable hospital commands so the patient can alert the caregiver when in distress [0233] and Ribble which teaches alerting a caregiver in certain instances [0074] with Chae because Chae teaches monitoring this time information to determine whether to keep the sound receiving elements in an active state [0170].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Ribble (U.S. 20210045677) and in further view of Yang (U.S. 20060183980).
Regarding Claim 10, Receveur and Ribble are silent on wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the voiceprint of the audio signal is consistent with a sleep voiceprint of the plurality of contextual voiceprints; based on the voiceprint of the audio signal being consistent with the sleep voiceprint, determine whether the sleep voiceprint stops and, then stop receiving the audio signal received by the plurality of sound receiving elements if the sleep voiceprint stops; and based on stop of the sleep voiceprint and stopping receiving the audio signal, generate the status notification signal. Yang teaches wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine whether the voiceprint of the audio signal is consistent with a sleep voiceprint of the plurality of contextual voiceprints [0077]—mentions voice recognition features of the device;
based on the voiceprint of the audio signal being consistent with the sleep voiceprint, determine whether the sleep voiceprint stops and, then stop receiving the audio signal received by the plurality of sound receiving elements if the sleep voiceprint stops [0088]—refers to recording the user and recording them when so an alert can be issued if the user stop’s breathing; and
based on stop of the sleep voiceprint and stopping receiving the audio signal, generate the status notification signal [Fig. 4, element c-5; “keeps record, analyzes data or transmits the data”]—interpreted to mean that the recording is no longer taking place.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to analyze sleep sounds to record and issue necessary alerts as taught by Yang to identify when the device should be in sleep mode as suggested by Receveur, and Ribble as Receveur discusses issuing voice commands to turn on “sleep mode” [0252] and Ribble which discloses the use of voice detection to indicate when the user has stopped sleeping [0062] with Yang because Yang teaches using this data to analyze and make improvements [0091].
Claim(s) 11, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Greene (U.S. 10593184) and in further view of Ribble (U.S. 20210045677).
Regarding Claim 11, Receveur teaches an intelligent monitoring system [Abstract]—reference to systems for voice control and capabilities related to them, comprising:
a mobile communication device [0114; “mobile phone 22′”]; and
an intelligent bed, comprising:
a bed body [Fig. 1, element 40 (patient bed)];
a plurality of sound receiving elements [Fig. 1, elements 48 (microphones)], surroundingly arranged around the bed body and each configured to receive an audio signal from an audio source [0080; “an array of far-field microphones that may be carried by the frame”] and [0185; “The array of microphones may communicate voice commands received from the person to the at least one computer”];
a voiceprint database [0241]—reference to authorized user database, comprising a plurality of contextual voiceprints [0241]—reference to voice biometrics of authorized users stored in the database;
a wireless communication element coupled to the mobile communication device [0127]—reference to nurse call system communicating with the bed system via a universal collector or other unit having Bluetooth wireless communication;
and a controller, coupled to the plurality of sound receiving elements and the voiceprint database and configured to:
extract a voiceprint of the audio signal received by the plurality of sound receiving elements [0134; “In this regard, circuitry 80 and controller 34 collectively or individually operate as an on-bed computer for processing of the voice inputs 70, 72 received by microphones 48 of bed 30 from the caregiver or patient.”];
determine whether the voiceprint of the audio signal is consistent with one of the plurality of contextual voiceprints [0241]—discloses comparing the voice input with the voice biometrics stored in the database;
control the wireless communication element to transmit a status notification signal to the mobile communication device based on the voiceprint of the audio signal being consistent with the one of the plurality of contextual voiceprints [0243; “A nurse call with recorded sounds also may be sent in connection with block 334 of algorithm 300 in appropriate situations in some embodiments of system 20.”];
Receveur is silent on determine whether a distance between the mobile communication device and the bed body is less than a preset distance value; and stop transmitting the status notification signal to the mobile communication device based on the distance being less than the preset distance value. Greene teaches determine whether a distance between the mobile communication device and the bed body is less than a preset distance value [Col 18, lines 35-48]—description of establishing movement thresholds and these thresholds being less than threshold value; and stop transmitting the status notification signal to the mobile communication device based on the distance being less than the preset distance value [Fig. 5, elements 545 (determining…discomfort state) and loop back to element 505 (capture…stream)]—also depicted if the discomfort level is scored as “yes” an alert output is generated in element 555.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use assigned measurement threshold values as taught by Greene to identify different alarm states as suggested by Receveur as Receveur discusses the various instances involving position and distance related to alarms [Table 1] with Greene because Greene teaches these alarm systems to identify baby discomfort states [Col 19, lines 4-7].
Receveur and Green are silent on wherein the controller is further configured to: extract a volume value of the audio signal received by each of the plurality of sound receiving elements; and determine a position of the audio source on the bed body according to a distribution of the volume values.
Ribble teaches wherein the controller is further configured to:
extract a volume value of the audio signal received by each of the plurality of sound receiving elements [Table 1] and [0057]; and
determine a position of the audio source on the bed body according to a distribution of the volume values [Table 1]—conclusion about patient location.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize sound volume to indicate position as taught by Ribble to indicate a status of the patient as suggested by Receveur, and Greene as Receveur discusses the use of voice control for medical devices [Abstract] and Greene which discloses threshold levels of sound present within the stream indicating the baby being in a comfort state [Col 3, lines 24-30] with Ribble because Ribble teaches characterizing sound including voice data by pattern matching to stored profile data in the memory [0070].
Regarding Claim 13, Receveur teaches comprising a plurality of mobile communication devices [Fig. 6, elements 22 and 22’ (mobile devices)]. Receveur, is silent on wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a distance between each of the plurality of mobile communication devices and the bed body is less than the preset distance value; and stop transmitting the status notification signal to the mobile communication devices based on the distance between one of the plurality of mobile communication devices and the bed body being less than the preset distance value.
Greene teaches wherein the controller is further configured to:
determine whether a distance between each of the plurality of mobile communication devices and the bed body is less than the preset distance value [Col 18, lines 35-48]—description of establishing movement thresholds and these thresholds being less than threshold value; and
stop transmitting the status notification signal to the mobile communication devices based on the distance between one of the plurality of mobile communication devices and the bed body being less than the preset distance value [Fig. 5, elements 545 (determining…discomfort state) and loop back to element 505 (capture…stream)]—also depicted if the discomfort level is scored as “yes” an alert output is generated in element 555.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use assigned measurement threshold values as taught by Greene to calculate positioning and location data suggested by Receveur, Ribble, as Receveur discusses the various instances involving position and distance related to alarms [Table 1] and Ribble which discloses therapeutic mechanisms to change the patient’s position [0084] with Greene because Greene teaches the importance of location data to determine whether a person is approaching or departing an area [Col 12, lines 15-23].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Greene (U.S. 10593184) and in further view of Ribble (U.S. 20210045677) and in even further view of Chae (U.S. 20210327417).
Regarding Claim 12, Receveur teaches wherein the intelligent bed further comprises:
a first positioning element, configured to obtain a position of the bed body [Table 1, reference to various accelerometers, potentiometers and actuators on sections of the bed deck],
Receveur and Greene and Ribble are silent on and wherein the mobile communication device further comprises a second positioning element, the second positioning element is configured to obtain a position of the mobile communication device, and the controller is further configured to calculate the distance according to the position of the bed body and the position of the mobile communication device.
Chae teaches wherein the mobile communication device further comprises a second positioning element, the second positioning element is configured to obtain a position of the mobile communication device [0062]—reference to the mobile terminal including a GPS module, and the controller is further configured to calculate the distance according to the position of the bed body and the position of the mobile communication device [0062; “a position of the mobile terminal can be acquired based on information related to a wireless access point (AP) which transmits or receives a wireless signal to or from the Wi-Fi module. If desired, the location information module 115 may alternatively or additionally function with any of the other modules of the wireless communication unit 110 to obtain data related to the position of the mobile terminal. The location information module 115 is a module used for acquiring the position (or the current position) and may not be limited to a module for directly calculating or acquiring the position of the mobile terminal.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use GPS and location based technologies of corresponding components of the system as taught by Chae to determine location and position of the patient as suggested by Receveur, Greene and Ribble as Receveur discusses determining the location of the user by RTLS before being voice controlled [0251] and Greene which discloses alerting parents to situations such as the baby being in dangerous positions [Col 4, lines 19-25] and Ribble which discloses monitoring positions and locations over time to indicate whether the patient needs assistance [0058] with Chae because Chae teaches detecting, calculating, deriving or identifying a position of the mobile terminal [0062].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 April 2026 with respect to the drawing, specification and abstract objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 26 April 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive however, new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 26 April 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered and are persuasive,
however, new rejections are presented above in light of the amendments for claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 citing Receveur in view of Ribble. Regarding claim 3, the applicant asserts that the amendments made to claim 1 to include elements of claim 3 overcome the prior art of reference citing Receveur (for claim 1) and Receveur in view of Fei (for claim 3). The applicant contends that Receveur and Fei fail to disclose “a plurality of sound receiving elements, surroundingly arranged around the bed body at intervals.” The examiner notes that the limitation “surroundingly arranged” would include interpretation of microphones positioned on opposite points of a bed frame or rail as shown in Receveur [Fig. 1] with elements 48 showing the microphones, where the intervals would be considered on either side of the patient in the bed. Applicant also contends that Receveur and Fei fail to teach the amended limitations including "extract a plurality of
volume value of the audio signal received by the plurality of sound receiving elements
respectively; and determine a position of the audio source on the bed body according to a distribution of the volume values; and generate a status notification signal based on the position of the audio source on the bed body and the voiceprint of the audio signal being consistent with the one of the plurality of contextual voiceprints." The examiner agrees with this position considering the amended limitations and new combination of limitations. Examiner presents rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 citing Receveur in view of Ribble, for claim 6 citing Receveur in view of Ribble and in further view of Greene, for claim 9 citing Receveur in view of Ribble and in further view of Chae, for claim 10 citing Receveur in view of Ribble and in further view of Yang, for claims 11 and 13 citing Receveur in view of Greene and in further view of Ribble and for claim 12 citing Receveur in view of Green in further view of Ribble and in even further view of Chae.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights