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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 28 March 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
-Fig. 2 references element 110u, however, this reference character is not found in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because
-Line 2 recites “elements is surroundingly arranged” in lines 2-3. Examiner recommends amending to –elements are surroundingly arranged—
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The use of the term “Bluetooth®” and “ZigBee®”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claims 1, 2, 3, and 11, recite “the sound receiving elements.” Examiner recommends amending to –the plurality of sound receiving elements—
-Claims 1, 9, 10, and 11, recites “the voiceprint”. Examiner recommends amending to –the voiceprint of the audio signal—
-Claims 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, recite “the contextual voiceprints”. Examiner recommends amending to –the plurality of contextual voiceprints—
-Claim 11 recites “a wireless…element, coupled to” in line 25. Examiner recommends amending to –a wireless…element coupled to—
-Claim 12 recites “wherein the mobile” in lines 3-4. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the mobile—
-Claim 13 recites “the bed body is” in line 6. Examiner recommends amending to –the bed body being—
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 1-13 are 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 “the audio signal” in line 8. It is unclear which audio signal is being referred to since this element is associated with the plurality of sound receiving elements. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 10 recites “the audio signal” in line 4. It is unclear which audio signal is being referred to since this element is associated with the plurality of sound receiving elements. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 10 recites “determine whether the sleep voiceprint stops and stop receiving the audio signal based on the voiceprint being consistent with the sleep voiceprint; and generate the status notification signal based on the sleep voiceprint stop and stop receiving the audio signal” in lines 14-17. It is unclear what this limitation requires in terms of stopping the voiceprint. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is stating that once the controller determines the voiceprint of the audio signal has stopped, the recording is stopped and a status notification symbol is generated or whether this is stating a different process.
-Claim 11 recites “the audio signal” in line 10. It is unclear which audio signal is being referred to since this element is associated with the plurality of sound receiving elements. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 12 recites “a second position of the mobile communication device” in lines 5-6. It is unclear what this is referring to since a first position of the mobile communication device was not previously introduced. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 13 recites “a preset distance value” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the preset distance value originally introduced in claim 11, line 18. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 13 recites “the one of the mobile communication devices” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Receveur (U.S. 20220101847).
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 sound receiving elements and the voiceprint database and configured to: extract a voiceprint of the audio signal [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.”] and; determine whether the voiceprint is consistent with one of the contextual voiceprints [0241]—discloses comparing the voice input with the voice biometrics stored in the database; and generate a status notification signal based on the voiceprint being consistent with the one of the 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.”].
Regarding Claim 2, Receveur teaches wherein the 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 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.
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) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Fei (U.S. 20200351586).
Regarding Claim 3, Receveur is silent on wherein the controller is further configured to: extract a volume value of the audio signal received by each of the sound receiving elements; and determine a position of the audio source on the bed body according to a distribution of the volume values. Fei teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: extract a volume value of the audio signal received by each of the sound receiving elements [065]—reference to signal strengths and amplitudes; and determine a position of the audio source on the bed body according to a distribution of the volume values [0065; “if both the first sensor 114 and the second sensor 112 are audio sensors, a sensor closer to an event occurring location can receive a larger sound, e.g., a sound of object or people falling, and the robot 13 identifies an event position according to the strength or amplitudes of the sound.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the audio features collected by the sound receiving elements as taught by Fei to monitor patient position as suggested by Receveur, as Receveur discusses a bed exit system that monitors bed exit conditions of the patient [0022] with Fei because Fei teaches the correlation of sound to objects or people falling [0065].
Regarding Claim 4, Receveur teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the position is located at an edge of the bed body [Table 1, reference to “bed name, bed exit”]; and generate the status notification signal based on the position being located at the edge of the bed body [Table 1, “Enables the bed exit alert system to the default level of sensitivity; load cells of the bed are monitored by bed control system and if signature bed exit movement is detected, sounds alarm; alarm can be sent through nurse call.”]
Claim(s) 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Greene (U.S. 10593184).
Regarding Claim 6, Receveur is 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 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].
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 sound receiving elements and the voiceprint database and configured to: extract a voiceprint of the audio signal [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 is consistent with one of the 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 being consistent with the one of the 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. Green 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].
Claim(s) 8, 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Chae (U.S. 20210327417).
Regarding Claim 8, Receveur is silent on wherein the contextual voiceprints comprise at least one of a cry voiceprint, a turnover voiceprint, a milk regurgitation voiceprint, a sleep voiceprint, or a play voiceprint. Chae teaches wherein the contextual voiceprints comprise at least one of a cry voiceprint, a turnover voiceprint, a milk regurgitation voiceprint, a sleep voiceprint, or a play voiceprint [0150]—references setting up the controller to recognize the voice of a pre-saved subject to activate assistance when the target subject cries.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include crying sounds within the voiceprint database as taught by Chae to identify when assistance is needed as suggested by Receveur as Receveur discusses comparing voice biometrics to determine who is making a noise or speaking [0241] with Chae because Chae teaches providing parenting assistance based on the sound input [0127].
Regarding Claim 9, Receveur is silent on wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the voiceprint is consistent with a cry voiceprint of the contextual voiceprints; and generate the status notification signal based on the voiceprint 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 is consistent with a cry voiceprint of the contextual voiceprints; and generate the status notification signal based on the voiceprint 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 utilize length of time of the crying event as taught by Chae to identify when assistance is needed as suggested by Receveur as Receveur discusses receiving information from the medical devices corresponding to a threshold period of time [0047] 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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view Greene (U.S. 10593184) and in 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 first position of the bed body, [Table 1, reference to various accelerometers, potentiometers and actuators on sections of the bed deck]. Receveur and Greene are silent on wherein the mobile communication device further comprises a second positioning element, the second positioning element is configured to obtain a second position of the mobile communication device, and the controller is further configured to calculate the distance according to the first position and the second position. Chae teaches wherein the mobile communication device further comprises a second positioning element, the second positioning element is configured to obtain a second 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 first position and the second position [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 and Greene 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] with Chae because Chae teaches detecting, calculating, deriving or identifying a position of the mobile terminal [0062].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Yang (U.S. 20060183980).
Regarding Claim 10, Receveur is silent on wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the voiceprint is consistent with a sleep voiceprint of the contextual voiceprints; determine whether the sleep voiceprint stops and stop receiving the audio signal based on the voiceprint being consistent with the sleep voiceprint; and generate the status notification signal based on the sleep voiceprint stop and stop receiving the audio signal [0077]—mentions voice recognition features of the device, [0088]—refers to recording the user and recording them when so an alert can be issued if the user stop’s breathing, [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 as Receveur discusses issuing voice commands to turn on “sleep mode” [0252] with Yang because Yang teaches using this data to analyze and make improvements [0091].
Claim(s)13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (U.S. 20220101847) in view of Chae (U.S. 20210327417) and in further view of Greene (U.S. 10593184).
Regarding Claim 13, Receveur teaches comprising a plurality of mobile communication devices [Fig. 6, elements 22 and 22’ (mobile devices)], Receveur and Chae are silent on wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a distance between each of the mobile communication devices and the bed body is less than a preset distance value; and stop transmitting the status notification signal to the mobile communication devices based on the distance between the one of the mobile communication devices and the bed body is less than the preset distance value. Greene teaches wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether a distance between each of the mobile communication devices 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 devices based on the distance between the one of the mobile communication devices and the bed body is 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, and Chae as Receveur discusses the various instances involving position and distance related to alarms [Table 1] and Chae which discloses calculating location information for the location information module related to the mobile terminal [0062] 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].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Maheshwari (U.S. 20190041973)—includes a system including a bed that uses contextual voice patterns to indicate events.
-Lawlor (U.S. 20220133221)-system using microphone data to analyze and improve sleep.
-Patil (U.S. 10447972)-monitoring incubator system with multiple surrounding microphone technologies.
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