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 .
This action is in regards to the filing on 2/5/2024. Since the initial filing, no claims have been added, amended or cancelled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 1-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “jerk” in claim 1-2, 4, 9-11, 13-15 and 19-20 is used by the claim in relation to analysis of a force signal, while the accepted meaning is in relation to analysis of an acceleration. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "each load cell" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests introducing “at least one load cell” prior to this limitation to overcome this rejection.
Dependent claims inherit the rejection of their predecessors.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[STEP 1]
In regards to claim 1, the claim is a system of components to do a method consisting of abstract ideas and is one of the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: receive the load signal over time during performance of a chest compression on the neonate; determine a slope value, an impulse value, a jerk value, or a combination thereof for the chest compression based on the load signal; compare the slope value to a slope threshold, the impulse value to an impulse threshold, or the jerk value to a jerk threshold, or a combination to generate a comparison result for the chest compression; and generate a care instruction based on the comparison result (judgement or evaluation which is grouped as a mental process under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are a limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collecting data regarding user actions, evaluating that data, an making a determination based upon that evaluation.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites additional elements of an infant supporting platform, at least one load cell, and a control system. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are not distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[Step 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conversational and well known devices of the art as shown by Fornell (US 2024/0156407; paragraph 104 and 113), McClunan (US 2025/0009257; paragraph 62).
In regards to claims 2-12, these claims merely include limitations that either further defines the abstract idea (and thus do not make the abstract idea any less abstract) (claims 2 and 3 introduce identifying features of data based on physical parameters; claim 4 introduces determining and identifying data features; claim 5 introduces determining data and generating output; claims 6-9 introduce determining parameters; claim 10 introduces comparing data; claim 11 introduces determining and identifying data features; claim 12 introduces generating output) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
[Step 1]
In regards to claim 13, the claim is method consisting of abstract and organization of human activity and is among the four statutory categories.
[STEP 2A, Prong One]
The claim recites the following limitations that recite an abstract idea: sensing a force applied to an infant support platform supporting the neonate, each load cell configured to receive at least a portion of an applied force on the infant support platform while the neonate is on the infant support platform and to generate a load signal indicative of the portion of the applied force received; receiving the load signal over time during performance of a chest compression on the neonate; determining a slope value, an impulse value, or a jerk value for the chest compression based on the load signal; comparing the slope value to a slope threshold, the impulse value to an impulse threshold, or the jerk value to a jerk threshold to generate a comparison result for the chest compression (judgement or evaluation with is grouped as a mental under 2019 PEG) and controlling a user interface device to generate a care instruction based on the comparison result (grouped as methods of organizing human activity under 2019 PEG). The above limitations are limited to a mental process that can be done by a person simply collecting data, evaluating that data, making a determination based on that evaluation and organizing human behavior in response.
[STEP 2A, Prong Two]
The claim recites additional elements of an infant supporting platform, a load cell, and a user interface. These additional elements fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because of the following: they are generic devices. The generic devices do not improve the function of the system of any other technology or technical field. The elements do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because there are not distinguishing elements of the device. Thus, for these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in the independent claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
[Step 2B]
The claim does not cite any additional structure that would make it significantly more than the judicial exception. The devices are described with a high degree of generality without any features or elements to distinguish over the conversational and well known devices of the art as shown by Fornell (US 2024/0156407; paragraph 113 and 116), McClunan (US 2025/0009257; paragraph 62).
In regards to claim 14-20 these claims merely include limitations that either further defines the abstract idea (and thus do not make the abstract idea any less abstract) (claim 14 introduces identifying features of data based on physical parameters; claim 15 introduces determining and identifying data features; claim 16 introduces determining data and generating output; claims 17-19 introduce determining parameters; claim 20 introduces determining and comparing data and generating output) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fornell (US 2024/0156407) in view of Santomauro (US 2020/0085682) and McClunan (US 2025/0009257).
In regards it claim 1, Fornell discloses an infant care system comprising: an infant support platform for supporting a neonate (infant platform 404, paragraph 113), a control system (processing system 1300, paragraph 116) configured to: receive a sensor signal over time, analyze the signal (paragraph 116-118).
While Fornell does not explicitly disclose wherein the control system is configured to generate care instructions based on the signal, it does teach wherein the control system sends messages regarding patient status based on the signal (system generates messages that may be sent to caregiver, paragraph 83 and paragraph 103 line 5-8, system may alert health care/hospital monitoring systems, paragraph 119 line 16-23). While these messages are not explicitly stated to contain care instructions, they are explicitly intended to be sent in response to potentially adverse status and sent to medical caregivers (paragraph 83). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fornell wherein the control system is configured to generate care instructions based on the signal as this would ensure that the infant received the most efficient response and effective care in the event an adverse status triggers a message be sent.
Fornell does not disclose at least one load cell configured to sense a force applied to the infant support platform, each load cell configured to receive at least a portion of an applied force on the infant support platform while the neonate is on the infant support platform and to generate a load signal indicative of the portion of the applied force received; and a control system configured to: receive the load signal over time during performance of a chest compression on the neonate; determine a slope value, an impulse value, a jerk value, or a combination thereof for the chest compression based on the load signal; compare the slope value to a slope threshold, the impulse value to an impulse threshold, or the jerk value to a jerk threshold, or a combination to generate a comparison result for the chest compression.
However, Santomauro teaches a platform for performing chest compression (pad 1, paragraph 20) having at least one force sensor (force sensors 12, paragraph 52) configured to receive at least a portion of an applied force on the infant support platform while the neonate is on the infant support platform and to generate a force signal indicative of the portion of the applied force received and generate a comparison result for the chest compression (paragraph 52, 54, 59-61).
Additionally, McClunan teaches a platform having a force sensor, wherein the force sensor is a load cell (load cells 221, paragraph 62).
While Santomauro does not teach determine a slope value, an impulse value, a jerk value, or a combination thereof for the chest compression based on the load signal; compare the slope value to a slope threshold, the impulse value to an impulse threshold, or the jerk value to a jerk threshold, or a combination, it does teach analyzing features of a force signal and compare these features to a threshold (paragraph 52, 54, 59-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fornell to have at least one load cell configured to sense a force applied to the infant support platform, each load cell configured to receive at least a portion of an applied force on the infant support platform while the neonate is on the infant support platform and to generate a load signal indicative of the portion of the applied force received; and a control system configured to: receive the load signal over time during performance of a chest compression on the neonate; determine a slope value, an impulse value, a jerk value, or a combination thereof for the chest compression based on the load signal; compare the slope value to a slope threshold, the impulse value to an impulse threshold, or the jerk value to a jerk threshold, or a combination to generate a comparison result for the chest compression as taught by McClunan and Santomauro as this would allow the system to determine important features of the compression in order to ensure proper care given to the patient.
In regards to claim 2, Fornell in view of Santomauro and McClunan teaches the system of claim 1.
Fornell does not disclose wherein the control system is configured to identify the slope threshold, the impulse threshold, or the jerk threshold based on a gestational age of the neonate.
However, McClunan teaches a system wherein parameters are determined based on gestational age (paragraph 51-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fornell wherein the control system is configured to identify the slope threshold, the impulse threshold, or the jerk threshold based on a gestational age of the neonate as taught by McClunan as this is a known base parameter from which to determine other parameters.
In regards to claim 3, Fornell in view of Santomauro and McClunan teaches the system of claim 2 and McClunan further teaches wherein the gestational age is based on a weight of the neonate (paragraph 52 and 79).
In regards to claim 4, Fornell in view of Santomauro and McClunan teaches the system of claim 1 and the combination further teaches the control system is further configured to: determine a neonate weight for the neonate based on the load signal (McClunan: paragraph 62); and to identify the slope threshold, the impulse threshold, or the jerk threshold based on the neonate weight (McClunan: paragraph 51-52).
In regards to claim 5, Fornell in view of Santomauro and McClunan teaches the system of claim 1.
Fornell does not disclose wherein the control system is further configured to: determine a chest compression modification based on the comparison result; and generate the care instruction by controlling a display device to generate a visual or audible instruction based on the chest compression modification.
However, Santomauro teaches wherein the control system is further configured to: determine a chest compression modification based on the comparison result (paragraph 59-61); and generate the care instruction by controlling a display device to generate a visual or audible instruction based on the chest compression modification (status indicator 18 is a screen, paragraph 57 and 59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fornell wherein the control system is further configured to: determine a chest compression modification based on the comparison result; and generate the care instruction by controlling a display device to generate a visual or audible instruction based on the chest compression modification as taught by Santomauro as this would be an efficient manner by which to communicate information to a user.
In regards to claim 6, Fornell in view of Santomauro and McClunan teaches the system of claim 1.
Fornell does not disclose wherein the control system is further configured to: determine at least one of an amplitude and a period of the chest compression; and determine the chest compression modification based further on a difference between the amplitude and an amplitude threshold or a between the period and a period threshold.
However, Santomauro teaches wherein the control system is further configured to: determine at least one of an amplitude and a period of the chest compression; and determine the chest compression modification based further on a difference between the amplitude and an amplitude threshold or a between the period and a period threshold (evaluation based on distance between peaks of force signal being too high or too low, paragraph 60).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fornell wherein the control system is further configured to: determine at least one of an amplitude and a period of the chest compression; and determine the chest compression modification based further on a difference between the amplitude and an amplitude threshold or a between the period and a period threshold as taught by Santomauro as this is a known manner to evaluate applied compression.
In regards to claim 7, Fornell in view of Santomauro and McClunan teaches the system of claim 1.
Fornell does not disclose wherein the control system is further configured to: determine a chest compression rate based on the load signal during at least two consecutive chest compressions; and determine the chest compression modification based further on a difference between the chest compression rate and a rate threshold.
However, Santomauro teaches wherein the control system is further configured to: determine a chest compression rate based on the load signal during at least two consecutive chest compressions; and determine the chest compression modification based further on a difference between the chest compression rate and a rate threshold (paragraph 60-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fornell wherein the control system is further configured to: determine a chest compression rate based on the load signal during at least two consecutive chest compressions; and determine the chest compression modification based further on a difference between the chest compression rate and a rate threshold as taught by Santomauro as this is a known manner to evaluate applied compression.
In regards to claim 12, Fornell in view of Santomauro and McClunan teaches the system of claim 1.
Fornell does not disclose wherein where the control system is further configured to: generate a first comparison result for a first chest compression and generate a second comparison result for a second chest compression; and generate the care instruction based on the first comparison result and the second comparison result.
However, Santomauro teaches where the control system is further configured to: generate a first comparison result for a first chest compression and generate a second comparison result for a second chest compression; and generate the care instruction based on the first comparison result and the second comparison result (paragraph 60-61).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, alone or combination, fails to disclose all of the structural and functional limitations as described in the claims.
Claim 8 discloses “wherein each of the slope value, the impulse value, or the jerk value is based on an increasing portion of the load signal associated with application of the chest compression” and claim 9 similarly discloses “wherein the control system is further configured to: determine a first slope value, a first impulse value, or a first jerk value based on an increasing portion of the load signal associated with application of the chest compression; and determine a second slope value, a second impulse value, or a second jerk value based on a decreasing portion of the load signal associated with release of the chest compression”. The specifics of the exact locations within the signal that the features are extracted are not found in the prior art.
Therefore, claims 8 and 9, as well as claims 10 and 11, being dependent on claim 9, are also allowable over the prior art of record.
Claim 13 describes a method comprising “determining a slope value, an impulse value, or a jerk value for the chest compression based on the load signal; comparing the slope value to a slope threshold, the impulse value to an impulse threshold, or the jerk value to a jerk threshold to generate a comparison result for the chest compression”. While the prior art teaches control devices which are capable of extracting features of the force signal and performing analysis using said features, there are no teachings of the precise method of extracting and analyzing in the prior art.
Therefore, claim 13, as well as 14-20, being dependent on claim 13, are allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Arielle Wolff whose telephone number is (571)272-8727. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at (571) 272-9034. 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.
/ARIELLE WOLFF/ Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights