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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, drawn to a process of sensing movement state of a bedridden person, in the reply filed on 4/25/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/25/26.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
The accompanying information disclosure statement (IDS) submission(s) is/are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
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.
Claims 1-10 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 positively recites the limitation "the time" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Depending claims 2-10 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “correctly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “correctly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what may or may not be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded to be considered “correctly” and/or the degree of “correct”ness required to be considered “correctly”. While the instant disclosure provides support for determining if a bedridden person was moved “correctly”, it appears ambiguous what may be considered correctly in light of the instant Specification. Depending claims 2-10 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “correctly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “correctly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what may or may not be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded to be considered “correctly” and/or the degree of “correct”ness required to be considered “correctly”. While the instant disclosure provides support for determining if a bedridden person was moved “correctly”, it appears ambiguous what may be considered correctly in light of the instant Specification. Depending claims 2-10 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “incorrectly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “incorrectly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what may or may not be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded to be considered “incorrectly” and/or the degree of “incorrect”ness required to be considered “correctly”. While the instant disclosure provides support for determining if a bedridden person was moved “incorrectly”, it appears ambiguous what may be considered incorrectly in light of the instant Specification. Depending claims 2-10 inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
The term “slapping action” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “slapping action” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to what may or may not be explicitly, implicitly, inherently, and/or inferentially required and/or excluded to be considered a “slapping action” and/or the degree of “slap” required to be considered a “slapping action”. While the instant disclosure provides support for determining if a bedridden person was “slapped”, it appears ambiguous what may be considered a “slapping action” in light of the instant Specification.
Claims 7 and 9 positively recite the limitation "the relationship" in lines 1-2 and 3-4, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Depending claims 8 and 10, respectively, inherit and do not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claims 7 and 10 positively recite the limitation "the sum of the differences" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Depending claim 8 inherits and does not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claims 7 and 10 positively recite the limitation "the quotient " in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Depending claim 8 inherits and does not remedy the indefiniteness.
Claim 8 positively recites the limitation "the type of sensor” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, wherein the abstract idea may be the mental process of sensing bed-ridden patient posture and movement information and mentally determining warnings therefor.
For independent claim 1, the claim(s) recite(s) a process of monitoring movement of a bedridden person including sensing states related to movement timing/frequency/correctness and issuing warnings based on incorrect movement or resetting a when movement is timely and/or correct.
As broadly as claimed these steps may be reasonably considered as the judicial exception of a mental process performable within the human mind, including by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion forming, or by a human using pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection III). For example, at least, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional (or even a mere layperson) observing and mentally capturing data of a bedridden patient undergoing routine movement protocols and using the data to mentally extract, classify or learn from data features to determine adherence to a movement protocol and/or correctness thereof.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the process steps as broadly as claimed are not tied to nor required to be performed, executed, or programmed on a special purpose computer. Further, the judicial exception is not even required to be performed on or tied to a mere generic processing device, controller, or the like.
The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Depending claims 2-10 inherit and do not remedy the non-statutory deficiency noted above, despite further specifying steps relating to posture and movement monitoring timing, frequency, and/or correctness that may be completed entirely mentally. The sensor of claim 8 may be reasonably considered an additional element that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since it appears to be routine, well-known, and conventional insignificant data gathering activity/structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nourani et al. (US 2013/0090571 A1, hereinafter Nourani).
For claim 1, Nourani discloses a care system monitoring method for sensing a movement state of a bedridden person (Figs 2-15B) ([0030-0094]), comprising inter alia:
sensing initial-state information when the bedridden person is in an initial state (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]);
issuing a first warning signal to remind a caregiver to perform a movement action on the bedridden person when the time that the bedridden person has been in the initial state exceeds a threshold period (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]);
sensing first-state information when the bedridden person is in a first state after completing the movement action (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]);
determining whether the bedridden person was moved correctly according to the initial- state information and the first-state information (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]);
resetting the first-state information as the initial-state information if it is determined that the bedridden person has been moved correctly (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]); and
issuing a second warning signal if it is determined that the bedridden person has been moved incorrectly (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]).
For claim 2, Nourani discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising inter alia:
continuously monitoring body-movement information when the time that the bedridden person has been in the initial state exceeds the threshold period, and determining whether the bedridden person has been moved according to the body-movement information (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]).
For claim 3, Nourani discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising inter alia:
continuously monitoring body-movement information when the time that the bedridden person has been in the initial state does not exceed the threshold period, and determining whether the bedridden person has been moved according to the body-movement information (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]);
sensing second-state information in a second state after the bedridden person has been moved;
determining whether the bedridden person was moved correctly according to the initial- state information and the second-state information (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]);
resetting the second-state information as the initial-state information if it is determined that the bedridden person has been moved correctly (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]); and
issuing a third warning signal if it is determined that the bedridden person has been moved incorrectly (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]).
For claim 4, Nourani discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the form of the movement action is turning (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]).
For claim 5, Nourani discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising inter alia:
monitoring the first-state information after the movement action has been performed on the bedridden person and determining whether the caregiver is performing a slapping action on the bedridden person's body (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]).
For claim 6, Nourani discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising inter alia:
determining whether the bedridden person is lying supine, or lying in the right lateral position, or lying in the left lateral position according to the relationship between posture state judgment parameters (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]).
For claim 7, Nourani discloses the method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the relationship between the posture state judgment parameters is the sum of the differences of the posture state judgment parameters, the quotient of the posture state judgment parameters, and setting thresholds (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]).
For claim 8, Nourani discloses the method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the setting thresholds are related to the type of sensor, the size of the sensor, and the body shape and weight of the bedridden person (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]).
For claim 9, Nourani discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising inter alia:
determining whether the bedridden person has been moved correctly according to the relationship between posture state judgment parameters (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]).
For claim 10, Nourani discloses the method as claimed in claim 9, wherein the relationship between the posture state judgment parameters is the sum of the differences of the posture state judgment parameters, the quotient of the posture state judgment parameters, and setting thresholds (Figs 2-15B, especially 2) ([0030-0094, especially 0048-0071]).
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record on the accompanying PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, relating to means for monitoring and alerting a bedridden patient’s movement(s) and/or turning frequency and/or turning correctness.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm EST.
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, Charles A. Marmor II can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights