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 .
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, 7, 10-13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (US Patent: 11, 328, 535) in view of Krishnamurthy et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0125347).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4, 7, 10, 11-13, 15-18, Guo et al a method for using a depth camera for detecting a patient attempting to leave (via motion detection such fall detection, column 2 lines 40-45), the method comprising:
obtaining a merged point cloud from an image of said depth camera, said merged point cloud being indicative of a human [see abstract, column 1 lines 50-67, column 2 lines 35-45];
reviewing said image to locate a within said merged point cloud a skeleton point cloud indicative of said human [see abstract];
Guo et al don’t disclose defining an edge of said merged point cloud which is not part of said skeleton point cloud, said edge being generally linear;
monitoring said merged point cloud for said skeleton point cloud to move and, by moving, break said edge;
using said break to determine that said human is attempting to leave said furniture object;
wherein, during said using, said determination involves deciding if a particular portion of said skeleton point cloud moved and broke said edge.
Nonetheless, Krishnamurthy et al disclose defining an edge of said merged point cloud which is not part of said skeleton point cloud, said edge being generally linear [see 0227, 0230-0232, 0369] by disclosing a contour is generally a curve associated with an edge of a representation of a person in an image [see 0227];
monitoring said merged point cloud for said skeleton point cloud to move and, by moving, break (by entering the edge of the exclusion zone, emphasis added) said edge [see 0369-0370];
using said break to determine that said human is attempting (by moving, emphasis0) to leave said furniture object (wheelchairs) [see 0243].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Guo et al and Krishnamurthy et al by defining an edge of said merged point cloud which is not part of said skeleton point cloud, said edge being generally linear; monitoring said merged point cloud for said skeleton point cloud to move and, by moving, break said edge and using said break to determine that said human is attempting to leave said furniture object; to monitor the motion of the individual.
Claim(s) 3, 8-9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (US Patent: 11, 328, 535) in view of Krishnamurthy et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0125347) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Derenne et al (Pub. No.: US 2015/0109442).
Regarding claim 3, Guo et al Krishnamurthy et al don’t disclose wherein said furniture object comprises a bed.
Nonetheless, Derenne et al disclose wherein said furniture object comprises a bed [see 0031, 0270].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Guo et al, Krishnamurthy et al and Derenne et al by using a bed; to detect if the patient is getting out of bed.
Regarding claim 8, Guo et al Krishnamurthy et al don’t disclose a speed with which said particular portion broke said edge
Nonetheless, Derenne et al disclose wherein said deciding involves a speed with which said particular portion broke said edge [see 0009, 0116, 0270].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Guo et al, Krishnamurthy et al and Derenne et al by detecting a speed; for monitoring the fall.
Regarding claim 9, Guo et al Krishnamurthy et al don’t disclose an angle with which said particular portion broke said edge.
Nonetheless, Derenne et al disclose wherein said deciding involves an angle with which said particular portion broke said edge [see 0116, 0270].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Guo et al, Krishnamurthy et al and Derenne et al by using an angle; to determine the orientation.
Regarding claim 14, Guo et al Krishnamurthy et al don’t disclose gait analysis.
Nonetheless, Derenne et al disclose wherein said monitoring comprises gait analysis [see 0009, 0019, 0202-0206].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Guo et al, Krishnamurthy et al and Derenne et al by using gait analysis; accuracy purposes.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al (US Patent: 11, 328, 535) in view of Krishnamurthy et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0125347) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tran (Pub. No.: US 2016/0287166)
Regarding claim 5, Guo et al Krishnamurthy et al don’t disclose wherein said particular portion corresponds to a lower extremity of said human.
Nonetheless, Tran discloses wherein said particular portion corresponds to a lower extremity of said human [see 0075-0079] by disclosing the feet/shoe can be detected by finding the lowest Z point clouds close the floor in room space [see 0075]
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Guo et al, Krishnamurthy et al and Tran by using a lower extremity of said human; for detecting a fall by tracking movements of key features very quickly.
Regarding claim 6, Guo et al Krishnamurthy et al don’t disclose wherein said particular portion corresponds to an upper extremity of said human.
Nonetheless, Tran discloses wherein said particular portion corresponds to an upper extremity of said human [see 0076] by disclosing the hair/hat can be detected by finding the highest Z point clouds close the floor in room space [see 0076]
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Guo et al, Krishnamurthy et al and Tran by tracking an upper extremity of said human; for detecting a fall by tracking movements of key features very quickly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see REM, filed 7/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-18 under 102 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 view of Guo et al (US Patent: 11, 328, 535) in view of Krishnamurthy et al (Pub. No.: US 2021/0125347) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tran (Pub. No.: US 2016/0287166).
Applicant’s arguments of independent claims 1, 15, 17 are moot since the new rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/JOEL F BRUTUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798