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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 1 has text that is illegible.
Figure 2a has text and reference numbers overlapping each other.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 19 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 19 recites the limitation “said third predetermined time period”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 19 recites the limitation “said fourth predetermined time period”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Dependent claims 2-15 and 20 are rejected based on dependence on claims 1 and 19.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halperin et al, US Patent Pub US 20200390403 A1 (hereinafter Halperin) in view of Mix et al, US Patent Pub US 20140039351 A1 (hereinafter Mix).
Claim 16
Halperin teaches a patient movement monitoring system for a bed mattress (Halperin, para 195 – A monitoring system for patient movement installed in a bed mattress.) comprising: a plurality of pressure sensors configured to contact a monitored device that receives a patient and detect pressure from the patient on the monitored device, wherein the plurality of pressure sensors provides a detected pressure output in response to the detected pressure (Halperin, para 172, 191 Fig. 1 refs(14, 30, 37) – Multiple pressure sensors that detect pressure from a patient on a monitored bed mattress/”monitored device”.); and a processing device in electronic communication with said pressure sensors and configured to receive the detected pressure output (Halperin, para 172, 191 Fig. 1 refs (14, 30) – A control unit/”processing device” in communication with the pressure sensors that receives the sensor output.), determine whether or not the patient has moved in a predetermined period of time, and generate an alert when it is determined that the patient hasn't moved in a predetermined period of time. (Halperin, para 202-203, 211, 320-325, 342-343 – Monitoring patient movement in a period of time and generating alerts based on lack of movement during the time period.)
But Halperin fails to clearly specify a pressure sensor array comprising a plurality of electronically interconnected pressure sensors.
However Mix teaches a pressure sensor array comprising a plurality of electronically interconnected pressure sensors. (Najafi para 20 – An array of electronical interconnected pressure sensing elements.)
Halperin and Mix are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They relate to patient bed monitoring systems.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above patient bed monitoring system, as taught by Halperin, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Mix.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to correlate the interface pressures to specific parts of the patient's body by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Mix (Abstract).
Claim 17
The combination of Halperin and Mix teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Mix further teaches the processing device determines that the patient has moved when the detected pressure output exceeds a threshold pressure value. (Mix, para 11 – The sensing system/”processing device” detecting movement along the sensor array of an area of pressure exerted by the patient against the sensor array that exceeds a threshold size and magnitude.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the above patient bed monitoring system, as taught by Halperin, and incorporating the above limitations, as taught by Mix.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to sense an undesirable condition relating to shear pressure by incorporating the above limitations, as suggested by Mix (para 11).
Claim 18
The combination of Halperin and Mix teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
The combination of Halperin and Mix further teaches said pressure sensor array is configured to be underneath the bed mattress. (Halperin, para 168, 171 – Pressure sensors placed under the bed mattress.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as set forth in this office action.
Dependent claim(s) 2-15 and 20 is/are allowable over art based on their dependence upon claims 1 and 19 respectively.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s claim defines over the prior art of record because the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, does not teach a processing device in electronic communication with said sensing devices and said pressure sensor array, where the processing device is configured with the capability to perform each of the operations relating to the accelerometer, the gyroscope, the vibration sensor, and the pressure sensor array, where the operations include for the accelerometer, receive the acceleration output signal from said accelerometer and generate a first alert if said accelerometer does not detect a minimum intensity of patient movement within a first predetermined time period, for the gyroscope, receive the gyroscope output signal from said gyroscope and generate a second alert if said gyroscope does not detect a threshold patient movement angle of the mattress within a second predetermined time period, for the vibration sensor, receive a vibration output signal from said vibration sensor and generate a third alert if said vibration sensor does not detect a threshold vibration within a third predetermined time period, and for the pressure sensor array to generate a fourth alert if said one or more pressure sensors does not detect a change in pressure within a fourth predetermined time period.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Najafi et al, US Patent Pub US 20230137904 A1 relates to claims regarding a weight support device that includes a sensor grid that measures pressure data while a user is on the weight support device, and a computer that analyzes the pressure data.
Larson et al, US Patent Pub US 20230011717 A1 relates to claims regarding pressure ulcer prevention and management using a array of pressure sensors attached to a mattress.
Shen et al, US Patent Pub US20160256080A1 relates to claims regarding real-time monitoring of a patient's orientation and surface pressure distribution over time, accelerometers and gyroscopes capable of measuring one or more conditions or characteristics of the patient.
Lafleche et al, US Patent Pub US 20210161462 A1 relates to claims regarding a patient support apparatus that includes a sensor adapted to detect movement of the occupant while the occupant is supported on the support apparatus, a controller monitors outputs from the sensor in response to a mobility assessment control being activated, an array of pressure sensors, and accelerometers that detect the movement and mobility of the patient over a time period.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E OGG whose telephone number is (469) 295-9163. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Thurs 7:30 am - 5:00 pm CT.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. 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.
/DAVID EARL OGG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2119