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 .
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.
No claim limitation has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 28: “the” should be inserted before “analysis”; and
in claim 1, line 37: “the” should be inserted before “analysis”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 6-12, and 14-20 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 “a first subset of the data” in line 23, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a corresponding subset of the measurements” of claim 1, lines 18-19. Since claim 1 recites that “data…is representative of measurements generated by a plurality of pressure sensors” in lines 12-13, it is not clear if subsets of data necessarily mean subsets of measurements. The relationship between these two types of subsets should be made clear.
Claim 1 recites “a notification to be presented on the display that indicates the human body is improperly positioned on the pressure-mitigation device” in lines 30-32, but it is not clear if this notification to be displayed is the same as, related to, a subset of, or different from the notifications from the recitation “a display on which notifications are visually presentable” of claim 1, line 6. The relationship between these recitations should be made clear. Relatedly, if they are different, it should be made clear which notification is being referring to in the recitation “the notification” in claim 1, line 34. Otherwise, the recitation in claim 1, line 34 is also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “a second subset of the data” in line 33, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a corresponding subset of the measurements” of claim 1, lines 18-19. Since claim 1 recites that “data…is representative of measurements generated by a plurality of pressure sensors” in lines 12-13, it is not clear if subsets of data necessarily mean subsets of measurements. The relationship between these two types of subsets should be made clear.
Claims 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the data is generated by a plurality of pressure sensors disposed proximal to a surface of the pressure-mitigation device” in lines 19-21, which is an action step in an apparatus claim. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, because it creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. (MPEP 2173.05(p) citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Claim 8 recites “the series of values” in line 23, but it is not clear if this recitation is referring to all the multiple series of values or a single series of values. Clarification is required.
Claims 9-12 and 14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 8.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the multi-channel tubing comprises a plurality of channels, and wherein each channel of the multi-channel tubing fluidly couples the fluid interface to a different one of the plurality of chambers of the pressure-mitigation device” in lines 1-4, but it is not clear what the effect this recitation has on the claimed controller since it further defines an element that is not part of the claimed controller.
Claim 12 recites “notifications” in line 2, but it is not clear if these notifications to be displayed is the same as, related to, or different from the notification from the recitation “a notification to be presented that indicates the human body is improperly positioned on the mitigation device” of claim 11, lines 3-4. The relationship between these recitations should be made clear. Relatedly, if they are different, it should be made clear which notification is being referring to in the recitation “the notification” in claim 12, line 4. Otherwise, the recitation in claim 12, line 4 is also indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “the series of values” in line 18, but it is not clear if this recitation is referring to all the multiple series of values or a single series of values. Clarification is required.
Claims 16-20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 15.
Claim 17 recites “the pressure-mitigation devices” in lines 1-2, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a pressure-mitigation device” of claim 15, line 3. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). Also, if they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the pressure-mitigation devices” in claim 17.
Related to the above, if “the pressure-mitigation devices” in claim 17, lines 1-2 is different from “a pressure-mitigation device” of claim 15, line 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “said determining that the pressure-mitigation devices is disposed between the human body and the underlying surface” in claim 17.
Claim 18 recites “force applied by the human body to the underlying surface” in lines 7-8, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “force applied by an underlying surface to a human body” of claim 15, lines 9-10. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claim 20 recites “a corresponding series of values” in line 3, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, a subset of, or different from “multiple series of values” of claim 15, lines 11-12. If they are the same, consistent terminology should be used. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0164677 (Squitieri)(previously cited), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0056020 (Caminade)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0008710 (Young)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0000477 (Huster)(previously cited).
Squitieri teaches a method performed by a controller (the control system 130 of Squitieri) comprising: a structural body that includes - a first fluid interface (the connector for the pump 132 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0080 and 0083 of Squitieri) to which a pump (the pump 132 of Squitieri) is fluidly couplable, and a second fluid interface (the connector for the multi-channel tubing 135 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0080 and 0082 of Squitieri) to which a pressure-mitigation device (the pressure mitigation support device 120 of Squitieri) with a plurality of chambers (the independently pressurized relief chambers of Squitieri; paragraphs 0007, 0018-0019, 0026, 0057, 0062-0064, and 0068 of Squitieri) is fluidly couplable. The method of Squitieri comprises the steps of causing, by the controller, the plurality of chambers to be independently inflated to varying degrees in accordance with a programmed pattern (paragraphs 0080 and 0099 of Squitieri), in response to a determination that the pressure-mitigation device is disposed between the human body in a supine position and a surface (paragraphs 0099 and 0167 of Squitieri); and receiving, by the controller, data that is representative of a temporal series of measurements generated by a plurality of pressure sensors in the pressure-mitigation device (paragraphs 0060, 0099, and 0193 of Squitieri).
Squitieri teaches or suggests monitoring real-time interface pressure (paragraphs 0066 and 0108 of Squitieri) and providing feedback from the pressurized chambers to adjust pressure within each chamber (paragraphs 0099 and 0193 of Squitieri). Caminade teaches a type of pressure sensor positioned under the inflatable chambers of a support device so as to measure the interface pressure from the body on the inflatable chambers (abstract and paragraphs 0030-0035 of Caminade). The use of the pressure sensors positioned under the inflatable chambers, as suggested by Caminade, rather than building them unto the side support portions is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and also provides feedback from the chambers so as to adjust the pressure within each chamber.
Squitieri also teaches the use of sensors to identify discrepancies in the ideal position of the patient on the anatomy-specific pressure-mitigating contact surface and attempt to adjust the patient accordingly (paragraph 0057 of Squitieri). Caminade teaches the use of the pressure sensor to determine the position of the patient (paragraphs 0067, 0100, and 0114 of Caminade). As previously mentioned, the use of the pressure sensors positioned under the inflatable chambers, as suggested by Caminade, rather than building them unto the side support portions is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and also provides feedback from the chambers so as to adjust the pressure within each chamber. Young teaches that alert mechanisms in the form of displays are used to alert if a change in the patent’s position is needed (paragraph 0062 and claims 12, 13 and 19 of Young). Young also teaches the use of processors and memories (paragraphs 0024, 0028, and 0045 of Young) for parsing data so as to arrive at the patient position (parsing the data from the pressure sensors (abstract, paragraphs 0003-0005, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030, 0033, 0037, 0039-0041, 0049, 0057-0059, 0061, and 0063 of Young) and determining position (the abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0003-0005, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030, 0033, 0036-0043, 0046-0051, 0057-0059, 0061, and 0063 of Young)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the processors and memories for performing the steps of parsing, determining, and generating notification of Young using the pressure readings from the sensors of Caminade so as to identify and display the discrepancies in the ideal position of the patient on the anatomy-specific pressure-mitigating contact surface and facilitate or ensure the adjustment of the patient accordingly, as suggested by Squitieri.
Huster teaches that the same controller housing may encompass the pumping system and the diagnostic system (FIGS. 12-13 and paragraphs 0005, 0048, 0115, 0124-0125, 0141-0142, and 0151 of Huster). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the capabilities for performing the steps of parsing, determining, and generating notification of Young in the controller, as suggested by Huster, since it would make the system more compact.
The combination teaches the use of the pressure-mitigation device with a pressure device 132 and connectors for attachment of the multi-channel tubing 135 to the control system (paragraph 0080 of Squitieri). Huster teaches the use of Hall effect sensors at ports at the surface of the controller to detect the presence of a magnet attached to an end of a hose so as to confirm the coupling of the hose to its connector at the surface of the controller (paragraph 0151 of Huster). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Hall effect sensors at ports at the surface of the control system 130 to detect the presence of magnets attached to the multi-channel tubing 135, as suggested by Huster, since it confirms the attachment of the coupling of the multi-channel tubing 135 to the control system 130.
With respect to claim 1, the combination teaches or suggests a controller comprising:
a structural body (the housing of the modified control system 130 of Squitieri) that includes - a first fluid interface (the connector for the pump 132 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0080 and 0083 of Squitieri) to which a pump (the pump 132 of Squitieri) is fluidly couplable, and a second fluid interface (the port/connector for the multi-channel tubing 135 at the surface of the control system 130 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0080 and 0082 of Squitieri) to which a pressure-mitigation device (the pressure mitigation support device 120 of Squitieri) with a plurality of chambers (the independently pressurized relief chambers of Squitieri; paragraphs 0007, 0018-0019, 0026, 0057, 0062-0064, and 0068 of Squitieri) is fluidly couplable;
a display (the display of the combination; paragraphs 0030-0031, 0033, and 0061-0063 and claims 12, 13 and 19 of Young) on which notifications are visually presentable;
a processor (the processors of Squitieri/Young; see paragraphs 0083, 0139, and 0141 of Squitieri); and
a memory (the memories of Squitieri/Young; see paragraphs 0083, 0139, and 0141 of Squitieri) that includes instructions for establishing a health state of a human body that is situated on the pressure-mitigation device,
wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to:
obtain data that is representative of measurements generated by a plurality of pressure sensors disposed proximal to a surface of the pressure-mitigation device (the pressure sensors of Caminade; paragraphs 0060, 0099, and 0193 of Squitieri), wherein each of the plurality of pressure sensors is associated with a corresponding one of the plurality of chambers and a corresponding subset of the measurements, and wherein the plurality of sensors are configured to measure contact pressure on the surface of the pressure-mitigation device (paragraphs 0066, 0099, 0108, and 0193 of Squitieri; abstract and paragraphs 0030-0035 of Caminade),
analyze a first subset of the data that corresponds to a first interval of time to identify patterns of the measurements that indicate a location of the human body (parsing the data from the pressure sensors; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0067, 0100, and 0114 of Caminade; abstract, paragraphs 0003-0005, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030, 0033, 0037, 0039-0041, 0049, 0057-0059, 0061, and 0063 of Young),
determine that the human body is improperly positioned on the pressure-mitigation device based on analysis of the first subset of the data (determining the position; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0067, 0100, and 0114 of Caminade; the abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0003-0005, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030, 0033, 0036-0043, 0046-0051, 0057-0059, 0061, and 0063 of Young), and
cause a notification to be presented on the display that indicates the human body is improperly positioned on the pressure-mitigation device (generating notification of Young so as to identify and display the discrepancies in the ideal position of the patient on the anatomy-specific pressure-mitigating contact surface and facilitate or ensure the adjustment of the patient accordingly; paragraphs 0030-0031, 0033, and 0061-0063 and claims 12, 13 and 19 of Young; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri),
analyze a second subset of the data that corresponds a second interval of time subsequent to when the notification is presented (parsing the data from the pressure sensors; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0067, 0100, and 0114 of Caminade; abstract, paragraphs 0003-0005, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030, 0033, 0037, 0039-0041, 0049, 0057-0059, 0061, and 0063 of Young; operation is continual or in real-time (paragraphs 0060, 0099, 0119, 0149-150, and 0193 of Squitieri) such that it would have been obvious to continue parsing, determining, and notifying on a continual/real-time basis during alert and non-alert periods so that the patient is continually monitored for unfavorable conditions), and
determine that the human body is properly positioned on the pressure-mitigation device based on analysis of the second portion of data (determining the position; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0067, 0100, and 0114 of Caminade; the abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0003-0005, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030, 0033, 0036-0043, 0046-0051, 0057-0059, 0061, and 0063 of Young; operation is continual or in real-time (paragraphs 0060, 0099, 0119, 0149-150, and 0193 of Squitieri) such that it would have been obvious to continue parsing, determining, and notifying on a continual/real-time basis during alert and non-alert periods so that the patient is continually monitored for unfavorable conditions).
With respect to claims 2-3 and 19, the pressure sensors sending data to the processors in the modified control system 130 of Squitieri (paragraphs 0060, 0099, and 0193 of Squitieri). Young teaches that such connections can be hard-wired, such as a USB cable (paragraphs 0023, 0045, and 0063 of Young). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a USB cable and its corresponding connections for sending sensor data to the modified control system of Squitieri since (1) a transmission method is required and Young teaches one such method and/or (2) it is a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
With respect to claim 2, the combination teaches or suggests a data interface (the USB connection of Young) at which to receive one end of a data cable (the USB cable of Young) interconnected between the controller and the pressure-mitigation device of claim 2.
With respect to claim 3, the combination teaches or suggests that the controller (the modified control system 130 of Squitieri) is configured to receive, via the data interface (the USB connection of Young), the data as the measurements are generated by the plurality of pressure sensors (paragraphs 0060, 0099, and 0193 of Squitieri).
With respect to claim 6, the combination teaches or suggests that the instructions further cause the controller to: for each of the plurality of chambers, establish the corresponding subset of the measurements based on a determination that the corresponding subset is associated with a corresponding pressure sensor collocated near that chamber (the parsing and determining of Young, paragraph 0057 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0067, 0100, and 0114 of Caminade).
With respect to claim 7, the combination teaches or suggests that each of the measurements is indicative of a change in electrical resistance experienced by a corresponding pressure sensor of the plurality of pressure sensors due to the contact pressure on the surface of the pressure-mitigation device (using the sensors of Caminade).
With respect to claim 8, the combination teaches or suggests a controller for managing fluid flow into a pressure-mitigation device (the pressure mitigation support device 120 of Squitieri) that has a plurality of chambers (the independently pressurized relief chambers of Squitieri; paragraphs 0007, 0018-0019, 0026, 0057, 0062-0064, and 0068 of Squitieri) intertwined in a geometric shape, the controller comprising:
a structural body (the housing of the modified control system 130 of Squitieri) that includes a fluid interface (the port/connector for the multi-channel tubing 135 at the surface of the control system 130 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0080 and 0082 of Squitieri) to which the pressure-mitigation device is fluidly couplable via multi-channel tubing (the multi-channel tubing 135 of Squitieri);
a processor (the processors of Squitieri/Young; see paragraphs 0083, 0139, and 0141 of Squitieri); and
a memory (the memories of Squitieri/Young; see paragraphs 0083, 0139, and 0141 of Squitieri) that includes instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the controller to:
cause the plurality of chambers to be independently inflated to varying degrees in accordance with a programmed pattern (paragraphs 0080 and 0099 of Squitieri), in response to a determination that the pressure-mitigation device is disposed between a human body in a supine position and an underlying surface (paragraphs 0099 and 0167 of Squitieri; using the sensors of Caminade);
obtain data that is representative of multiple temporal series of values, wherein each temporal series of values is indicative of a contact pressure onto a corresponding one of the plurality of chambers over a corresponding one of multiple intervals of time, wherein the data is generated by a plurality of pressure sensors disposed proximal to a surface of the pressure-mitigation device (using the pressure sensors of Caminade; paragraphs 0066, 0099, 0108, and 0193 of Squitieri; abstract and paragraphs 0030-0035 of Caminade);
examine the data to identity, for each of the multiple temporal series of values, patterns of the series of values that indicate a location of the human body (parsing the data from the pressure sensors; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0067, 0100, and 0114 of Caminade; abstract, paragraphs 0003-0005, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030, 0033, 0037, 0039-0041, 0049, 0057-0059, 0061, and 0063 of Young);
determine that the human body is improperly positioned on the pressure-mitigation device based on an analysis of the patterns (determining the position; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0067, 0100, and 0114 of Caminade; the abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0003-0005, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030, 0033, 0036-0043, 0046-0051, 0057-0059, 0061, and 0063 of Young).
With respect to claim 9, the combination teaches or suggests that the structural body further includes a second fluid interface (the connector for the pump 132 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0080 and 0083 of Squitieri) to which a pump (the pump 132 of Squitieri) is fluidly couplable.
With respect to claim 10, the combination teaches or suggests that the multi-channel tubing (the multi-channel tubing 135 of Squitieri) comprises a plurality of channels, and wherein each channel of the multi-channel tubing fluidly couples the fluid interface to a different one of the plurality of chambers of the pressure-mitigation device (paragraph 0082 of Squitieri).
With respect to claim 11, the combination teaches or suggests that the instructions further cause the controller to: causing a notification to be presented that indicates the human body is improperly positioned on the mitigation device (generating notification of Young so as to identify and display the discrepancies in the ideal position of the patient on the anatomy-specific pressure-mitigating contact surface and facilitate or ensure the adjustment of the patient accordingly; paragraphs 0030-0031, 0033, and 0061-0063 and claims 12, 13 and 19 of Young; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri).
With respect to claim 12, the combination teaches or suggests that a display (the display of the combination; paragraphs 0030-0031, 0033, and 0061-0063 and claims 12, 13 and 19 of Young; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri) on which at least one of information and notifications is visually presentable; wherein the notification is presented via the display (using the display for generating notification of Young so as to identify and display the discrepancies in the ideal position of the patient on the anatomy-specific pressure-mitigating contact surface and facilitate or ensure the adjustment of the patient accordingly; paragraphs 0030-0031, 0033, and 0061-0063 and claims 12, 13 and 19 of Young; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri).
With respect to claim 15, the combination teaches or suggests a method performed by a controller (the control system 130 of Squitieri) that has a durable housing (the controller housing of the modified control system 130 pf Squitieri) in which a processor (the processors of Squitieri/Young) resides, the method comprising:
receiving, by the processor, input indicating that a pressure-mitigation device is fluidically coupled to a fluid interface that is accessible along a surface of the durable housing (the confirmation of coupling of the tubing 135 to the control system 130 use to the Hall effect sensors at ports at the surface of the control system 130 to detect the presence of magnets attached to the multi-channel tubing 135), wherein the pressure-mitigation device includes a plurality of chambers (the independently pressurized relief chambers of Squitieri; paragraphs 0007, 0010, 0018-0019, 0024, 0026, and 0068 of Squitieri) that are intertwined to collectively have a geometric form
causing, by the processor, the plurality of chambers to be inflated to varying degrees in accordance with a programmed pattern (paragraphs 0080 and 0099 of Squitieri), so as to shift force applied by an underlying surface to a human body;
obtaining, by the processor, data that is representative of multiple series of values, wherein each series of values is indicative of a contact pressure onto a corresponding one of the plurality of chambers over a corresponding one of multiple intervals of time, and wherein the data is generated by a plurality of pressure sensors disposed proximal to a surface of the pressure-mitigation device (using the pressure sensors of Caminade; paragraphs 0066, 0099, 0108, and 0193 of Squitieri; abstract and paragraphs 0030-0035 of Caminade);
examining, by the processor, the data to identify patterns of the series of values that are indicative of a location of the human body (parsing the data from the pressure sensors; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0067, 0100, and 0114 of Caminade; abstract, paragraphs 0003-0005, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030, 0033, 0037, 0039-0041, 0049, 0057-0059, 0061, and 0063 of Young);
determining, by the processor, that the human body is improperly positioned on the pressure-mitigation device based on an analysis of the patterns (determining the position; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri; paragraphs 0067, 0100, and 0114 of Caminade; the abstract, paragraphs 0001, 0003-0005, 0019, 0026-0027, 0030, 0033, 0036-0043, 0046-0051, 0057-0059, 0061, and 0063 of Young); and
causing, by the processor in response to said determining, presentation of a notification that the human body is improperly positioned on the pressure-mitigation device (generating notification of Young so as to identify and display the discrepancies in the ideal position of the patient on the anatomy-specific pressure-mitigating contact surface and facilitate or ensure the adjustment of the patient accordingly; paragraphs 0030-0031, 0033, and 0061-0063 and claims 12, 13 and 19 of Young; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri).
With respect to claim 16, the combination teaches or suggests that said causing the plurality of chambers to be inflated is performed in response to determining that the pressure-mitigation device is disposed between the human body and the underlying surface (paragraphs 0099 and 0167 of Squitieri).
With respect to claim 17, the combination teaches or suggests that said determining that the pressure-mitigation devices is disposed between the human body and the underlying surface is based on input provided by an operator through an interaction with the controller (Squitieri teaches that the control system 130 is configured to be programmed by a patient, healthcare personnel, the patient, etc. For example, the control system 130 can be programmed on a patient-specific basis to manage and mitigate pressure on one or more existing pressure ulcers that are currently present on a patient in a specific anatomic location (paragraphs 0081, 0083, 0088, 0098, 0108, 0125, and 0149 of Squitieri) such programming affects the determination that the pressure-mitigation device is disposed between the human body and the underlying surface (paragraphs 0099 and 0167 of Squitieri)).
With respect to claim 18, the combination teaches or suggests that each value of the multiple series of values is indicative of a change in electrical resistance experienced by a corresponding one of the plurality of pressure sensors due to force applied by the human body to the underlying surface (the operation of the pressure sensors of Caminade).
With respect to claim 19, the combination teaches or suggests that the data is obtained at a data interface (the USB connection of Young) to which a data cable (the USB cable of Young) is connected, the data cable being interconnected between the controller and the pressure-mitigation device.
With respect to claim 20, the combination teaches or suggests, for each chamber of the plurality of chambers, establishing a corresponding series of values based on a determination that the corresponding series of values is associated with a corresponding sensor that is associated with that chamber (the parsing and determining of Young, also paragraphs 0060, 0099, and 0193 of Squitieri).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0164677 (Squitieri)(previously cited), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0056020 (Caminade)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0008710 (Young)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0000477 (Huster)(previously cited), and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0174198 (Young 198)(previously cited).
The combination teaches or suggests that the instructions further cause the controller to: causing a notification to be presented that indicates the human body is improperly positioned on the mitigation device (generating notification of Young so as to identify and display the discrepancies in the ideal position of the patient on the anatomy-specific pressure-mitigating contact surface and facilitate or ensure the adjustment of the patient accordingly; paragraphs 0030-0031, 0033, and 0061-0063 and claims 12, 13 and 19 of Young; paragraph 0057 of Squitieri).
Young 198 that such status information may be sent to a database or other source via a wireless transmitter to be analyzed at a later time to determine long-term trends (paragraph 0030 of Young 198). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send the notification of Young so as to identify and display the discrepancies in the ideal position of the patient on the anatomy-specific pressure-mitigating contact surface to a database or other source via a wireless transmitter since such data can be analyzed at a later time to determine long-term trends.
With respect to claim 14, the combination teaches or suggest a communication module (the wireless transmitter of Young 198) that is configured to establish a wireless communication channel with a destination external to the controller, other than the pressure-mitigation device; wherein the said causing includes transmitting, via the communication module, the notification to the destination for presentation (the wireless transmission suggested by Young 198).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed on 6/16/2026 have been fully considered.
Claim objections
In view of the claim amendments filed on 6/16/2026, the previous claim objections have been withdrawn. However, there are new grounds of claim objections that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 6/16/2026.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
In view of the claim amendments filed on 6/16/2026, the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been withdrawn with the exception of claim 10. With respect to claim 10, the Applicant did not address, by amendment or argument, the indefiniteness issue that claim 10 further defines an element that is not part of the claimed controller. The Examiner cannot find a reason to withdraw the rejection.
Also, there are new grounds of claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 6/16/2026.
Prior art rejections
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. That is, there are new grounds of rejections that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 6/16/2026.
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 MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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 (571) 272-5596. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights