DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1-13 were amended in a preliminary amendment. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the Office suggests amending the claim to remove the “i.e.” wording (for example, “… corresponding obstacle located in the line of sight …”. The Office also suggests amending claim 1 to state “the several distance sensors” at line 11. The Office suggests amending the claim to state “in the following order” at line 13. Appropriate correction is required.
The Office suggests amending the claims to replace “characterised in that” with “wherein.”
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 limitation "the environment of the first volume" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites that the detector includes several distance sensors. The claim then states that distance measurements are provided between “said sensor and a corresponding obstacle … an obstacle located in the line of sight of said sensor” at lines 7-9. It is unclear if only 1 of the several sensors are being referenced or any of the several sensors that may have an obstacle in its line of sight. For purposes of examination, the Office interpreted the limitation as referring to the latter. The Office also suggests amending the claim to state that it a distance sensor that is being referenced and not just “sensor” to provide extra clarity.
Step (c) in claim 1 is unclear as to the “part” being selected. Does this mean selecting the ts data from step (b) or just choosing a particular sensor for further processing of its data. The Office interpreted the part as being the former.
Step 10 requires determining whether the person was in bed as a criterion for evaluation. However, there was no previous limitations related to evaluating a location in bed. It is unclear if the bed location determination involves using the same sensing equipment. The Office interpreted the location as being part of the first volume.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan (US 2020/0245901) in view of Marra et al. (US 2018/0049677) .
Regarding claim 1 Kaplan, discloses a device for detecting a movement or a stop of a movement of a person or an object in a room, or an event relating to said person (a device capable of performing any of the three was interpreted as satisfying the preamble limitation, Abstract refers to a device for detecting movement of a person relative to his/her bed), the device comprising:
a detector (Fig. 1, #20) having a detection field able to cover at least one first volume of said room and at least one portion of the environment of the first volume, said detector including several distance sensors, each distance sensor having a line of sight and being able to provide distance measurements over time between said sensor and a corresponding obstacle, i.e. an obstacle located in the line of sight of said sensor (Fig. 1 and [0025] –“The device (10) comprises a detector (20) with a detection field (50) that is capable of covering at least a portion of the bed (40) and at least a portion of the environment thereof. As will readily be understood, the detection field is that portion of the space in which the detector is able to carry out its function. Said detector (20) comprises a plurality of distance sensors, each distance sensor being capable of providing distance measurements over time between said sensor and a corresponding obstacle in said detection field (50)”),
a processing unit connected to the detector and configured to process over time the distance measurements received from the distance sensors of the detector ([0028] – “The device (10) further comprises a processing unit (30) that is connected to the detector (20) and configured to acquire and process the distance (or time of flight, which is equivalent to a nearly constant factor) measurements that are supplied by the distance sensors of the detector over time”), characterized in that the processing unit is configured to perform the following steps and in that order:
a. for each of the distance sensors of a first set of distance sensors of the detector, determining a first corresponding reference distance either as a distance measured at a first time point by the corresponding distance sensor, or as being a combination of distances measured at several first time points by the corresponding distance sensor ([0042] discloses the determination of a reference location/distance or in this case a bed height measured relative to the floor, Kaplan does not specifically disclose if there is a first set of distance sensors that make the reference measurement, but does disclose that the sensor may comprise a TOF sensor embodied by a camera, this type of camera emits light that is reflected by the obstacle in the scene and is detected by pixels on the camera sensor; the camera sensor is a 2D array of pixels; given the expansive reach of the camera shown in Fig. 1, only a subset of the pixels would be used to estimate a reference height of the bed, the reference distance measured would be at one particular point in time),
b. determining a second set of distance sensors which consists of those of the distance sensors of the first set including a distance measurement performed at a time point subsequent to the first time point or to the first time points differs by more than a predetermined first value from the first reference distance of the corresponding distance sensor (Kaplan does not disclose that when the camera is taking data, only a subset of pixels are in operation, rather all the pixels on the camera’s sensor are operating thus a second set of distance sensors making a measurement would include the first as they are all operating at once to collect data; the camera can take TOF data at various adjustable time increments which would be subsequent to the initial reference measurement, see [0032] reference to time course measurements; the sensor is setup to detect movement in zones 1, 2, and 3 shown in Fig. 1 which could for instance indicate movement from zone 1 – the person in bed – leaving the room as indicated by a combination of movement in zone 2 and 3 and the detection of an empty bed if zone 1 indicates that the reference height is detected),
c. selecting at least one first part of the distance sensors of the second set of distance sensors and associating said subsequent time point with the at least one first part of distance sensors (this could be interpreted as occurring in the normal course of operation where a patient exits the bed and moves into zone 2 shown in Fig. 1 which would be detected by the pixels directed in that area detecting a new obstacle not previously in zone 2),
d. determining, for the selected at least one first part of distance sensors, a first representative position of the positions in space of the obstacles corresponding to the distance sensors of said selected at least one first part of sensors, and associating the subsequent time point with said first representative position (as noted in [0041], the obstacles detected by the distance measurement of the pixels directed at particular zone at particular time can be characterized by a geometric center which is interpreted as the claimed position in space),
e. repeating steps a. to d. at several other time points subsequent to the first time point or to the first time points (as noted in at least [0032], subsequent measurements can be taken at varying time periods, e.g. every 5 seconds),
f. associating representative positions associated with the several different subsequent time points to form a first association of representative positions (at each time, the device can determine a new geometric center of any obstacles detected any of the zones).
Kaplan does not disclose the remaining processing steps:
g. selecting, within the first association of representative positions, at least one first pair of representative positions and calculating a first speed as the distance between the representative positions of said first pair divided by the duration separating the subsequent time points associated with the representative positions of said first pair,
h. deciding, when said first speed is higher than a predetermined second value, that the person or the object has performed a movement in the room between the subsequent time points associated with the representative positions of said first pair of representative positions.
Kaplan’s invention determines whether a patient has moved by confirming that the patient is (1) no longer in bed (i.e. reference height is detected meaning nobody is in bed) and (2) determining presence in the zones in adjacent to the bed at subsequent times points. Kaplan does not rely on measuring speed of the person moving from zone to zone for determining movement. However, other patient observation systems in the art were known to use speed determinations for detecting movement. Marra et al. teach a system for monitoring patients in hospital beds (Abstract). Figure 1 shows a patient in bed with a sensor (2) for observing patient location. Sensor 2 is disclosed as an image capture element such as an IR camera ([0055]). The camera can detect a person’s location in bed initially (see for example Fig. 3a). The image is then reduced to that of a segmented model (Fig. 3b). Movement out of the bed can be determined such as shown in Fig. 7 (see also the example in Fig. 13 which shows how the segment translates in space over time due to patient movement). Marra teaches that movement parameters including speed of the patient is determined ([0108]) and processed by a computer to determine, for example, if the patient is out of the bed, has fallen from the bed, and/or has convulsions ([0162]). Predefined limits can be associated with the movement parameters ([0127] notes that speed can be compared to a predefined limit to see if a movement is related to, for example, a convulsion). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Kaplan to use a speed-based determination as taught by Marra for assessing movement because it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success given that both uses a non-contact camera sensor for image assessment.
Regarding claim 2, Kaplan discloses the device characterised in that the combination of the distances measured at the first time points is an average of the distances measured at the first time points ([0041] notes that a geometric center representing the patient is determined which is also referenced in the same paragraph as a computation of an average spatial position).
Regarding claim 3, Kaplan discloses the device characterised in that said first representative position is the position of the geometric centre of the obstacles corresponding to said selected at least one first part of distance sensors (see [0041] discussed in the claim 2 rejection above).
Regarding claim 4, Kaplan does not disclose the claimed limitations. However, Marra et al. teaches the device characterised in that the processing unit is configured to: form at least one association of representative positions and select, within each of the formed associations of representative positions, at least one pair of representative positions and calculate, for each of the selected pairs of representative positions, a speed as being the distance between the representative positions of the selected pair divided by the duration separating the subsequent time points associated with the representative positions of said pair, determine whether all of the speeds calculated for the selected pairs of representative positions are lower than the predetermined second value, decide, if so is the case, that the person or the object has stopped all movements (as noted in the claim 1 rejection, the patient is reduced to a segmented figure, the movement data/speed is calculated for each segment at different time measurement points, [0114] – [0122], thus the device can follow the speed of the torso or any other segment through space as the body moves and compare it to the threshold or limit discussed above). The rationale for modifying remains the same.
Regarding claim 5, Kaplan does not disclose the claimed limitations. However, Marra teaches the device characterised in that the speeds are calculated for selected pairs of representative positions forming part of the same association of pairs of representative positions formed by pairing each representative position forming part of said association with a representative position of said association which directly follows it chronologically, and only with the latter (this would also be taught by tracking of segment kinematics such as speed mentioned in the claim 4 rejection above).
Regarding claim 6, Kaplan discloses the device characterised in that the processing unit is configured to: determine whether the first representative position is located in the first volume or in a second volume or in a third volume in space, the first volume being a volume extending vertically upwards and/or downwards from a first horizontal surface of said room, the second volume being a finite volume extending outwards from the lateral limits of the first volume, the third volume being a volume extending outwards from the lateral limits of the second volume, decide that said person or object was located in that one amongst the first, second or third volume where said first representative position is located at the subsequent time point associated therewith (see Fig. 1 which shows the 3 claimed volumes of space adjacent to the patient bed, see claim 1 rejection for the discussion of patient presence in the different zones/volumes).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan in view of Marra et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matcham (US 2021/0118558).
Regarding claim 7, Kaplan does not disclose the device characterised in that the processing unit is configured to determine, or to interrogate another processing unit to know whether said person is in the first volume or has left the first volume or has fallen after having left the first volume. This limitation was interpreted as querying a remote sensing device for data/results (in this case, a central server query’s the device of Kaplan to acquire patient movement data). Matcham teaches a healthcare system with communication capabilities. The system includes a server that is capable of querying a remote device for data (see at least box 908 in Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Kaplan to include the claimed limitations as taught by Matcham because it would allow permit monitoring of multiple patients from a central location. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as this merely applies communication techniques well known in the arts.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaplan in view of Marra et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujii et al. (US 2013/0100284).
Regarding claim 8, Kaplan discloses the device characterised in that the processing unit is configured to verify at a given time point whether: said person has left the first volume and has not fallen, said person or object has performed a movement in the room, said person or object was located in the first volume at the time of said movement, and to decide that said person has returned to the first volume if all of these three conditions are met simultaneously. The Kaplan device is capable of determining whether the person has left the first volume (on the bed) as well as determining whether the person has fallen out of bed ([0031]), determining movement in the volumes as indicated by changes in the geometric center of the patient being monitored ([0036]), and can even determine if the person is approaching the bed ([0036]), but does not combine all of those pieces of information to ascertain whether a person has returned to bed. Other systems for patient monitoring do include functionality for evaluating when a patient has left the bed and returned to bed. Fujii et al. teach a monitoring device that includes a ranging imaging sensor (10) that is placed adjacent to a patient bed as shown in Fig. 2A. Fuji et al. teach that the system can detect that a patient has left his/her bed and returned to the bed by detecting first presence in the bed, absence from the bed, movement away from bed and movement back to and presence on the bed ([0172]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to further modify Kaplan to include additional features of determining whether a person has left and returned to bed as taught by Fujii et al. because Kaplan already includes gathering of data to make such a determination and it amounts to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected in similar manner to claim 8 above. Claim 9 differs in that the criteria related whether a person or object has performed a movement in the room is replaced with whether said person has stopped all movements in the room. All other limitations are the same. Kaplan does disclose the ability to detect non-neglible movement ([0043]-[0044]) by setting minimum variations indicative of movement which means that negligible movement can be detected as well (i.e. no movement). The argument for modifying Kaplan in view of Fujii remains the same.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11 (and all dependent claims thereof including claims 12 and 13) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tho Q. Tran whose telephone number is (571)270-1892. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/THO Q TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights