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
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/23/26, 03/17/26, 03/09/26, 02/24/26 have been considered by the examiner.
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on April 10, 2026, amended claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, and 19 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and were persuasive. Therefore, these rejections have been withdrawn
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections raised in the previous office action were fully considered, but are moot in view of the current combination of references that were necessitated by amendment. Please see prior art section below for more detail, updated citations (VerBockel and Connor references), and updated obviousness rationale.
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 Hollopeter (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0014774 A1) and in further view of VerBockel (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0108148 A1) and Connor (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0108148 A1)
Hollopeter and Connor were applied in the previous office action
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 an external computing device [par. 40, 44]; 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”], allowing said external computing deice to determine whether a shading area of said planar sensing pad array exceeds a first threshold [par. 64, 73] and whether a time of shading lasts longer than a preset time period based on said light data [par. 73-75, Examiner notes light data is in reference to the color map]
Although Hollopeter does not explicitly teach each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a wireless communication device configured to communicate with an external computing 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]. Examiner also notes that the controller unit sends the aggregated pressure data to data acquisition system via wireless communication module [par. 40] and that the data acquisition system may be contained within a personal computing device or distributed over a plurality of computing devices in multiple locations [par. 44]. 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 light sensor to detect light and transmit light data to said external computing device
VerBockel teaches a light sensor to detect light and transmit light data to said external computing device [par. 104, 105]
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 light sensor to detect light and transmit light data to said external computing device, for tracking sleep data, as evidence by VerBockel [par. 105].
However, Hollopeter does not teach wherein said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are spliced along a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to said first direction to form said planar sensing pad array
Connor teaches wherein said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are spliced along a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to said first direction to form said planar sensing pad array [fig. 160, element 15503; par. 906]
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 wherein said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are spliced along a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to said first direction to form said planar sensing pad array, for adjusting each sensing pad individually, as evidence by Connor [par. 906].
Regarding claim 2, Hollopeter further teaches each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a pressure sensing device, and 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 Hollopeter, VerBockel and Connor and in further view of Lukas (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0215236 A1)
Lukas was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claim 5, Hollopeter, VerBockel and Connor teach a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter, VerBockel and Connor do 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, VerBockel and Connor, 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, VerBockel and Connor and in further view of Kenalty (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0053424 A1)
Kenalty was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claim 6, Hollopeter, VerBockel and Connor teach a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter, VerBockel and Connor do 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, VerBockel 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 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, VerBockel 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].
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, VerBockel 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].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter, VerBockel and Connor and in further view of Quan (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0409070 A1)
Quan was applied in the previous office action
Regarding claim 7, Hollopeter, VerBockel and Connor teach a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter, VerBockel and Connor do 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, VerBockel and Connor, 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].
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter and in further view of Lukas, VerBockel and Connor
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], allowing said external computing device to determine whether a shading area of said planar sensing pad array exceeds a first threshold [par. 64, 73] and whether a time of shading lasts longer than a preset time period based on said light data [par. 73-75, Examiner notes light data is in reference to the color map]
Although Hollopeter does not explicitly teach each one of said pluralities of pressure sensing pads includes a wireless communication device configured to communicate with an external computing 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]. Examiner also notes that the controller unit sends the aggregated pressure data to data acquisition system via wireless communication module [par. 40] and that the data acquisition system may be contained within a personal computing device or distributed over a plurality of computing devices in multiple locations [par. 44]. 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 a light sensor to detect light and transmit light data to said external computing device
VerBockel teaches a light sensor to detect light and transmit light data to said external computing device [par. 104, 105]
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 light sensor to detect light and transmit light data to said external computing device, for tracking sleep data, as evidence by VerBockel [par. 105].
However, Hollopeter does not teach wherein said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are spliced along a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to said first direction to form said planar sensing pad array
Connor teaches wherein said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are spliced along a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to said first direction to form said planar sensing pad array [fig. 160, element 15503; par. 906]
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 wherein said pluralities of pressure sensing pads are spliced along a first direction and a second direction perpendicular to said first direction to form said planar sensing pad array, for adjusting each sensing pad individually, as evidence by Connor [par. 906].
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter, Lukas, VerBockel and Connor and in further view of Main
Regarding claim 13, Hollopeter, Lukas, VerBockel and Connor teach a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter, Lukas, VerBockel 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, VerBockel 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, VerBockel 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, VerBockel 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].
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollopeter, Lukas, VerBockel and Connor and in further view of Kentlay
Regarding claim 16, Hollopeter, Lukas, VerBockel and Connor teach a combined smart sensing pad, as disclosed above
However, Hollopeter, Lukas, VerBockel 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, VerBockel 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, VerBockel 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, VerBockel 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, VerBockel 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
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 5712724233. 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
Prosecution Insights