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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statements (IDS) has been submitted by Applicant
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 -10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a combined smart sensing pad. Thus, claim 1 is directed towards a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
“wherein one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads is a master device and others are slave devices, said master device being coupled with said slave devices to collect pressure data and transmit said pressure data to an external computing device”
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“a planar sensing pad array including pluralities of pressure sensing pads to sense pressure data in different areas, each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads including a wireless communication device”
These are generic sensing device components, and are conventional means for detecting pressure. These appear to be nothing more than generic sensing device components and, as such, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, executing an action based on the wireless signal pertains to mere extra-solution activity, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and/or recite significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the ordered combination of elements do not add anything significantly more to the claimed subject matter. Rather, Examiner takes official notice that they are widely known structural components that have been set forth in prior analysis apparatuses. See Hollopeter [par. 22, 169], which teaches these sensor components.
Further, dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 recite the additional limitations, pluralities of pressure sensors, a processing device, a pressure sensing device, a master/slave mode switch, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or a microcontroller, a sensing circuit, a Bluetooth device, light sensor. However, these are well understood, routine and conventional and therefore do add significantly more.
Dependent claims 3 and 8 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea, recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above, and/or do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above
In view of the above, independent claim 1 fails to recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Thus, claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellopeter (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0014774 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Hollopeter teaches a combined smart sensing pad comprising [fig. 2, par. 37]: a planar sensing pad array [fig. 2, element 6] including pluralities of pressure sensing pads to sense pressure data in different areas [fig. 2, elements 8, 10, 12; par. 34], each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads including a wireless communication device [fig. 2, elements 130; par. 37]; and wherein one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads is a master device and others are slave devices [par. 41], said master device being coupled with said slave devices to collect pressure data and transmit said pressure data to an external computing device [par. 40 “ Controller unit 38 sends the aggregated pressure data to data acquisition system 132 via wireless communication module 130”, par. 41 “controller unit 38 serves as a master controller, while controller units 122 and 126 serve as slave controllers. In this respect, controller unit 38 communicates with controller units 122 and 126, and with data acquisition system 132”].
Although Hollopeter does not explicitly teach each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a wireless communication device, this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed since Hollopeter also suggests there is at least one wireless communication module [par. 37]. Additionally, Hollopeter teaches the pressure sensing pads are in communication with wireless communication module [par. 40]. Therefore, incorporating each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a wireless communication device would involve only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Hollopeter further teaches said pressure sensing device includes pluralities of pressure sensors [par. 45 “Pressure sensing elements of pressure sensing devices 42, 32, and 44 sense interface pressure levels at various locations ”]
Regarding claim 3, Hollopeter further teaches said external computing device is coupled to said planar sensing pad array to receive said pressure data and positioning information to generate a pressure distribution [fig. 3, par. 39, 43, 47]
Regarding claim 4, Hollopeter further teaches each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a processing device [fig. 2, elements 122, 38, 126] electrically connected to a pressure sensing device [fig. 2, elements 42, 32, 44] for processing said pressure data [par. 39, 40]; said wireless communication device being electrically connected to said processing device [par. 41 “controllers 122 and 126 may send data collected from respective pressure sensing devices 42 and 44 directly to data acquisition system 132 via wired or wireless means”].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lukas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0215236 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Hollopeter teaches a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter does not teach comprising a master/slave mode switch electrically connected to said processing device
Lukas teaches comprising a master/slave mode switch electrically connected to said processing device [par. 40, 41]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, to incorporate a master/slave mode switch electrically connected to said processing device, for determining which control unit acts as master, as evidence by Lukas [par. 40].
Claims 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter and in further view of Kenalty (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0053424 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Hollopeter teaches a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter does not teach said processing device includes an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or a microcontroller.
Kenalty teaches said processing device includes an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or a microcontroller [par. 31]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, to incorporate said processing device includes an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or a microcontroller, to provide an embedded processor, as evidence by Kenalty [par. 32].
Regarding claim 8, Kenalty further teaches said external computing device determines whether number of a pressure point is greater than a threshold, if positive, said external computing device issues a warning signal [par. 77].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, to incorporate said external computing device determines whether number of a pressure point is greater than a threshold, if positive, said external computing device issues a warning signal, to reduce the potential for pressure ulcers, as evidence by Kenalty [par. 77].
Regarding claim 9, Kenalty further teaches said wireless communication device includes a Bluetooth device [par, 36].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, to incorporate said wireless communication device includes a Bluetooth device, as Bluetooth devices are common forms of wireless communication for transmitting data to a processor, as evidence by Kenalty [par. 36].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0409070 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Hollopeter teaches a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter does not teach said processing device and said wireless communication device are integrated to form a sensing circuit
Quan teaches said processing device and said wireless communication device are integrated to form a sensing circuit [par. 196]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, to incorporate said processing device and said wireless communication device are integrated to form a sensing circuit, to measure or detect the signal, as evidence by Quam [par. 196].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter and in further view of Main (WO 2022/053863)
Regarding claim 10, Hollopeter teaches a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter does not teach each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a light sensor
Main teaches said each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a light sensor [par. 61]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, to incorporate each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a light sensor, to provide comfort features, as evidence by Main [par. 61].
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter and in further view of Lukas and Connor (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0108148)
Regarding claim 11, Hollopeter teaches a combined smart sensing pad [fig. 2, par. 37] comprising: a planar sensing pad array [fig. 2, element 6] including pluralities of pressure sensing pads to sense pressure data in different areas [fig. 2, elements 8, 10, 12; par. 34]; wherein each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a processing device [fig. 2, elements 122, 38, 126], a wireless communication device [fig. 2, elements 130; par. 37] coupled to said processing device [par. 41 “controllers 122 and 126 may send data collected from respective pressure sensing devices 42 and 44 directly to data acquisition system 132 via wired or wireless means”], pressure sensors coupled to said processor to collect pressure at different positions [par. 39, 40, 45 “Pressure sensing elements of pressure sensing devices 42, 32, and 44 sense interface pressure levels at various locations ”], and wherein a master pad being coupled with slave pads to collect pressure data and transmit said pressure data to an external computing device [par. 40, 41]
Although Hollopeter does not explicitly teach each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a wireless communication device, this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed since Hollopeter also suggests there is at least one wireless communication module [par. 37].Additionally, Hollopeter teaches the pressure sensing pads are in communication with wireless communication module [par. 40]. Therefore, incorporating each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a wireless communication device would involve only routine skill in the art.
However, Hollopeter does not teach a master/slave mode switch connected to said processor to set a mode;
Lukas teaches comprising a master/slave mode switch electrically connected to said processing device [par. 40, 41]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, to incorporate a master/slave mode switch electrically connected to said processing device, for determining which control unit acts as master, as evidence by Lukas [par. 40].
However, Hollopeter does not teach wherein said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are spliced together by a snapping structural.
Connor teaches wherein said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are spliced together by a snapping structural [par. 154, 895]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, to incorporate a master/slave mode switch electrically connected to said processing device, so that support structures can be connected directly to each other, without a central longitudinal connector, as evidence by Connor [par. 895].
Regarding claim 12, Hollopeter further teaches wherein said external computing device is coupled to said planar sensing pad array to receive said pressure data and positioning information to generate a pressure distribution [fig. 3, par. 39, 43, 47].
Claims 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor and in further view of Main
Regarding claim 13, Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor teach a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor do not teach wherein said pressure sensors include capacitor type pressure sensor.
Main teaches wherein said pressure sensors include capacitor type pressure sensor [par. 59]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor, to incorporate said pressure sensors include capacitor type pressure sensor, to monitor various data about and certain vital information of the person, as evidence by Main [par. 59].
Regarding claim 14, Main further teaches wherein said pressure sensors include resistant type pressure sensor [par. 59]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor, to incorporate said pressure sensors include resistant type pressure sensor, to monitor various data about and certain vital information of the person, as evidence by Main [par. 59].
Regarding claim 15, Main further teaches wherein said pressure sensors include piezoelectric type pressure sensor [par. 59]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor, to incorporate said pressure sensors include piezoelectric type pressure sensor, to monitor various data about and certain vital information of the person, as evidence by Main [par. 59].
Regarding claim 20, Main further teaches said each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a light sensor [par. 61]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor, to incorporate each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a light sensor, to provide comfort features, as evidence by Main [par. 61].
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor and in further view of Kentlay
Regarding claim 16, Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor teach a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor do not teach said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are made of waterproof and anti-slip material.
Kenalty teaches said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are made of waterproof and anti-slip material [par. 51; Examiner notes the outer material is upholstery and inner cover is waterproof]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by a Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor, to incorporate said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are made of waterproof and anti-slip material, to provide comfort to the user and protection to the sensor pads, as evidence by Kenalty [par. 51].
Regarding claim 17, Kenalty further teaches said processing device includes an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or a microcontroller [par. 31]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor, to incorporate said processing device includes an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or a microcontroller, to provide an embedded processor, as evidence by Kenalty [par. 32].
Regarding claim 18, Kenalty further teaches said wireless communication device includes a Bluetooth device [par, 36].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor, to incorporate said wireless communication device includes a Bluetooth device, as Bluetooth devices are common forms of wireless communication for transmitting data to a processor, as evidence by Kenalty [par. 36].
Regarding claim 19, Kenalty further teaches said external computing device determines whether number of a pressure point is greater than a threshold, if positive, said external computing device issues a warning signal [par. 77].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Hollopeter, Lukas and Connor, to incorporate said external computing device determines whether number of a pressure point is greater than a threshold, if positive, said external computing device issues a warning signal, to reduce the potential for pressure ulcers, as evidence by Kenalty [par. 77].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571)272-4233. 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791