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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending for examination. Claim 5 is cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 7-18 are currently amended. Claim 21 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed December 10, 2025, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC § 112 and 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection is made as set forth below.
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.
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, 6-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furman et al [US 20160354263 A1] in view of Klap et. al [US 9883809 B2] and in further view of Vogedes et al [US 20080290985 A1].
As for claim 1, Furman discloses a bed system (paragraph 0005) comprising:
at least one sensor configured to sense activity at the bed system (paragraph 0045);
a controller (36) having processors and memory (paragraph 0047), wherein the controller is in communication with the at least one sensor (paragraphs 0045 and 0049), wherein at least one processor of the processors operates in an active-operation mode (paragraph 0078), wherein the controller is configured to:
receive, from the at least one sensor, sensor signals generated by the at least one sensor responsive to sensing information at the bed system (paragraph 0078);
detect, based on processing the received sensor signals, a bed-exit event at the bed system (paragraphs 0054, 0055, and 0078);
generate, based on the detected bed-exit event, instructions to cause the at least one processor to switch from operating in the active-operation mode to a low-power-saving mode (paragraph 0078); and
execute the instructions to cause the at least one processor to operate in the low-power-saving mode (paragraph 0078).
Furman does not specifically disclose that the at least one sensor is configured to sense at least one from the group consisting of pressure signals, temperature signals and load cell signals. Further, Furman is silent on the claimed executing the instructions causes the at least one processor to suspend current operations being executed, by the at least one processor. In an analogous art for a bed system, Klap discloses that it was known for a bed monitoring system to include at least one sensor configured to sense at least one of the group consisting of pressure signals, temperature signals, and load cell signals (column 6, line 64 – column 7, line 32). Since, Furman discloses monitoring the bed system using sensors, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Furman to include the sensors taught by Klap. The modification would have been obvious because it would have allowed the system to determine and/or generate various data associated with the bed system and/or patient in relation to the bed system.
In an analogous art for conserving energy in an electronic system, Vogedes discloses that it was known in the art for a processor to suspend current operations when the electronic device had entered into low power saving mode (paragraphs 0028, 0033 and 0034). Having each of the references on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Furman and modified by Klap to include the power saving teachings of Vogedes. The modification would have allowed the bed system to reduce the amount of power consumed by the system by suspending operation of the processors in the system.
As for claim 2, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
As for claim 3, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Neither of the references specifically discloses a bed-entrance event at the bed system. However, Furman discloses generating instructions to cause the at least one processor to switch from operating in the low-power-saving mode to the active operation mode, wherein the instructions cause the at least one processor to resume operations being performed before the at least one processor was switched to operate in the low-power-saving mode (paragraph 0078). Since Furman discloses that the switching to active operation mode is in response to a sensor detecting data (touch) it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Furman as modified by Klap and Vogedes to use sensor data relating to the patient using the bed system in order to determine what mode of operation the bed system should be operating in.
Claim 4 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 3 above.
Claims 6-11 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
As for claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Klap (columns, 9 & 10 and column 16, lines 1-37) discloses that it was known in the art for bed system operations to include executing at least one machine learning trained model to determine health or sleep information about a user of the bed system. Having these teachings on hand, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Furman in view of Klap and Vogedes to include a machine learning trained model in order to improve the bed system by operating in the most efficient manner based on historical data regarding the person(s) associated with the bed system.
Claims 13-17 are interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claim 21 is interpreted and rejected using the same reasoning as claim 3 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of the cited references discloses bed/patient monitoring systems and methods that were known in the art at the time of filing the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC M BLOUNT whose telephone number is (571)272-2973. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00a - 5:30p.
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, Quan Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
ERIC M. BLOUNT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2685
/Eric Blount/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685