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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claims 1-20 in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/09/2026 is withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
As disclosed in Terminal Disclaimer review decision (DISAPPROVED) filed 03/23/2026 in response to the Terminal Disclaimer Filed in an Application filed 03/03/2026, the person who signed the terminal disclaimer is not the applicant, patentee or an attorney or agent of record. 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). (See FP 14.26.08). Please file a Power of Attorney that gives power to the attorney who is signing the Terminal Disclaimer, along with another copy of the Terminal Disclaimer, or file a Terminal Disclaimer that is signed by the applicant.
No new fee is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6-12, and 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,608 B2 in view of Tanaka. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are an obvious variant of the claim set from the patent only including minor differences in structure.
Claims 1 and 13 of the instant invention and claims 1 (see col. 14, lines 53-67) and 12 (see col. 15, line 39 to col. 16, line 11) of US patent '608 similarly recite detecting, with a detector coupled to a first patient support apparatus (patient bed), thermal radiation from a field of view including a second patient support apparatus (patient chair), and processing data related to the thermal radiation from the field of view to determine a status of a person within the field of view. Claims 1 and 13 of the instant invention further specifies the determined status of a person within the field of view, as disclosed in Tanaka (see 103 rejection below).
Claims 2-3 and 14 ofthe instant invention and claims 2 (see col. 5, lines 1-3) and 16-18 (see col. 16, lines 20-37) of US patent '608 similarly recites specifying the determined status of a person within the field of view.
Claims 4 and 15 of the instant invention and claim 4 (see col. 15, lines 8-12) of US patent '608 similarly recites alerting the person to return to the position in the second patient support apparatus (chair) when the person is determined to be exiting the second patient support apparatus (chair).
Claims 5 and 16 of the instant invention and claims 6 (see col. 15, lines 19-21) and 19 (see col. 16, lines 38-40) of US patent '608 similarly recites detecting thermal radiation within a 65 degree cone scanning field that is broad enough to view the second patient support apparatus (chair).
Claims 6 and 17 of the instant invention and claims 7 (col. 15, lines 22-25) and 20 (see col. 16, lines 41-44) of US patent'608similarly recites determining a temperature of the person by processing the data related to the thermal radiation from the field of view.
Claims 7 and 18 of the instant invention and claim 8 (see col. 15, lines 26-28) of US patent '608 similarly recites alerting a caregiver if the temperature of the person exceeds a predetermined value.
Claims 8 and 19 of the instant invention and claim 9 (see col. 15, lines 29-31) of US patent '608 similarly recites identifying pressure sores on the person based on the detected temperature of the person.
Claims 9 and 20 of the instant invention and claim 11 (see col. 15, lines 34-36) of US patent '608 similarly recites displaying a thermal image from the field of view on a remote display device.
Claim 10 of the instant invention is dependent of claim 9, which further specifies wherein the remote display device is a mobile device carried by a caregiver. A remote display device can be a mobile device, as disclosed in Tanaka (see 103 rejection below).
Claim 11 of the instant invention and claim 10 (see col. 15, lines 32-33) of US patent '608 similarly recites wherein the detector includes a thermal camera.
Claim 12 of the instant invention is dependent of claim 11, which further specifies wherein the thermal camera includes a forward-looking infrared camera, and thermal cameras can be infrared cameras, as disclosed in Tanaka (see 103 rejection below).
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 13 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “detecting…thermal radiation…” and “processing data…to determine a status of a person…” steps do not specify how to detect thermal radiation, and process data “related to” thermal radiation to determine a status of a person. The physician can print and view (detect) a thermal image of a person, and determine the status of the person in the printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
General system elements (i.e., detector) related to the insignificant extra solution activity steps that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “determining a fourth status of the person by processing the data related to the thermal radiation from the field of view” step does not specify how to process data “related to” thermal radiation to determine a status of a person. The physician can determine the status of the person in the printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 3 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “determining a fifth status of the person by processing the data related to thermal radiation from the field of view” step does not specify how to process data “related to” thermal radiation to determine a status of a person. The physician can determine the status of the person in the printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 4 and 15 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “alerting the person to return to the position in the second patient support apparatus when the person is determined to be exiting the second patient support apparatus” step does not specify how to alert a person to return to an apparatus location, and how to determine a person is exiting an apparatus. The physician can determine a person exited an apparatus by seeing the person exiting the apparatus, and tell (alert) the person to return to the apparatus (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 5 and 16 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “detecting thermal radiation within a 65 degree cone scanning field that is broad enough to view the second patient support apparatus” step does not specify how to detect thermal radiation. The physician print and view a thermal image with an apparatus in the printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 6 and 17 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “determining a temperature of the person by processing the data related to the thermal radiation from the field of view” step does not specify how to process data “related to” thermal radiation to determine a temperature of a person. The physician print and view a thermal image of a person, and determine the temperature of the person based on the colors in printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 7 and 18 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “alerting a caregiver if the temperature of the person exceeds a predetermined value” step does not specify how to alert a caregiver, or how to determine the temperature of the person exceeds a predetermined value. The physician can determine the temperature of a patient (i.e., via physician’s hand, thermometer, viewing the patient sweat/flush, thermal image), and tell (alert) a caregiver the patient’s temperature is too hot (exceeds a predetermined value) (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 8 and 19 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “identifying pressure sores on the person based on the detected temperature of the person” step does not specify how to identify sores on a person based on the person’s temperature. The physician print and view a thermal (temperature) image of a person, and identify sores on the printed image using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 9 and 20 merely specifies the thermal image is displayed on a remote device. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 10 merely specifies the remote device is a mobile device. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 11 merely specifies the detector includes a thermal camera. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
General system elements (i.e., detector, camera) related to the insignificant extra solution activity steps that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 12 merely specifies the thermal camera includes a forward-looking infrared camera. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
General system elements (i.e., camera) related to the insignificant extra solution activity steps that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 14 merely specifies the different statuses (positions) of the person. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 20200221977 A1, published July 16, 2020) in view of Dumoulin et al. (US 20160015277 A1, published January 21, 2016), hereinafter referred to as Tanaka and Dumoulin, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claim 13, Tanaka teaches a method for contactless monitoring of a person, the method comprising:
detecting, with a detector coupled to a first patient support apparatus (bed), thermal radiation from a field of view including a second patient support apparatus (chair) (see para. 0131 – “…as shown in FIG. 2, the system makes use of the two infrared array sensors 21 a and 21 b, which are capable of capturing images of the care receiver P1 from above and from the side in the room 30.”), and
processing data related to the thermal radiation from the field of view to determine a status of a person within the field of view from one of at least three statuses (see para. 0147 – “The image acquisition component 11 acquires from the infrared array sensors 21 a and 21 b the infrared image data captured by the infrared array sensors 21 a and 21 b.”; see para. 0148 – “The orientation estimation component 12 uses the infrared image data acquired by the image acquisition component 11 to estimate the orientation of the care receiver P1 in the room 30.”),
wherein the one of at least three statuses includes positioned in the second patient support apparatus (chair), in the process of exiting the second patient support apparatus (chair), and out of the second patient support apparatus (chair) (see para. 0149 – “The orientations of the care receiver P1 estimated by the orientation estimation component 12 include, for example, a standing position [output of chair], a seated position [positioned in chair], a supine position, a lateral recumbent position, a prone position, a half-sitting position [in process of exiting chair], and so forth.” can view the pose (status) of the person in the thermal image).
Tanaka teaches a detector viewing a chair, but does not explicitly teach where the detector is attached to the bed.
Whereas, Dumoulin, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the detector coupled to a first patient support apparatus (bed) (Fig. 1, video monitoring device 1 (detector) coupled to crib 13 (bed); see para. 0043 – “In the example shown, a video monitoring system, denoted 10, comprises a video monitoring device 1 to be discussed in detail below, a mounting foot 12, and a mounting clamp 11. In the example shown, the mounting clamp is attached to a side rail of the crib or more generally of the bed. Note that in the monitoring assembly, it could also be secured to the crosspiece at the head or the foot of the bed.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the detector, as disclosed in Tanaka, by having the detector coupled to the bed, as disclosed in Dumoulin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to view the entire relevant area of the bed, as taught in Dumoulin (see para. 0046).
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Tanaka further teaches determining a fourth status of the person by processing the data related to the thermal radiation from the field of view, wherein the fourth status is that the person is moving between the second patient support apparatus and the first patient support apparatus (see para. 0228 – “Next, in step S30, it is determined that the care receiver P1 is moving somewhere within the room 30 other than next to the bed or on the bed.” can view the pose (status) of the person in the thermal image).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Tanaka further teaches determining a fifth status of the person by processing the data related to thermal radiation from the field of view, wherein the fifth status indicates that the person is falling based on a rate of change in the thermal radiation in the field of view (see para. 0219 – “That is, after the infrared image G1 is acquired from the infrared array sensors 21 a and 21 b in step S11, it is determined in step S21 whether or not the orientation of the care receiver P1 in the infrared image G1 is indicates that the person has fallen down.”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 5 and 16, Tanaka further teaches wherein detecting thermal radiation from a field of view includes detecting thermal radiation within a 65 degree cone scanning field that is broad enough to view the second patient support apparatus (Fig. 2; see para. 0131-0132 – “Here, with the display control system 20 in this embodiment, in order to watch over the care receiver (person) P1 in a room 30, as shown in FIG. 2, the system makes use of the two infrared array sensors 21 a and 21 b, which are capable of capturing images of the care receiver P1 from above and from the side in the room 30. A bed 31, a wheelchair 32, and other such in-room equipment are installed in the room 30, forming the living space of the care receiver P1.” Where viewing the chair 32 in the room can be viewed in by an infrared sensor 21a or 21b in a 65 degree field of view).
Furthermore, regarding claims 6 and 17, Tanaka further teaches determining a temperature of the person by processing the data related to the thermal radiation from the field of view (see para. 0141 – “That is, since an area where a person is located will have a higher temperature, the value of pixels in an area where a person was imaged will be higher. Thus, an area where a person is present (a region of higher temperature) can be identified from the infrared image data by finding an area with higher pixel values.”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 7 and 18, Tanaka further teaches alerting a caregiver if the temperature of the person exceeds a predetermined value (see para. 0033 – “Conversely, if the change in the position of the thermal center of gravity is above a certain threshold value, it can be determined that care is needed [alert]…”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 9 and 20, Tanaka further teaches displaying a thermal image from the field of view on a remote display device (see para. 0142 – “The display device 22 is, for example, a monitor of a host computer 22 a installed in a nursing facility (see FIG. 4A), a mobile terminal 22 b (see FIG. 4B), or the like, and displays an infrared image G1 obtained by imaging the care receiver P1 (see FIG. 12).”; see para. 0144 – “The portable terminal 22 b encompasses a mobile phone, smart phone, tablet terminal, or the like owned by a caregiver.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, Tanaka further teaches wherein the remote display device is a mobile device carried by a caregiver (see para. 0142 – “The display device 22 is, for example, a monitor of a host computer 22 a installed in a nursing facility (see FIG. 4A), a mobile terminal 22 b (see FIG. 4B), or the like, and displays an infrared image G1 obtained by imaging the care receiver P1 (see FIG. 12).”; see para. 0144 – “The portable terminal 22 b encompasses a mobile phone, smart phone, tablet terminal, or the like owned by a caregiver.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Tanaka further teaches wherein the detector includes a thermal camera (see para. 0076 – “…either an infrared array camera or a distance sensor is used as the image sensor in the room.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Tanaka further teaches wherein the thermal camera includes a forward-looking infrared camera (Fig. 2; see para. 0131-0132 – “Here, with the display control system 20 in this embodiment, in order to watch over the care receiver (person) P1 in a room 30, as shown in FIG. 2, the system makes use of the two infrared array sensors 21 a and 21 b, which are capable of capturing images of the care receiver P1 from above and from the side in the room 30. A bed 31, a wheelchair 32, and other such in-room equipment are installed in the room 30, forming the living space of the care receiver P1.” Where the infrared sensors 21a and 21b has a forward field of view to view the room 30).
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, Tanaka further teaches wherein:
a first status includes positioned in the patient chair, a second status includes in the process of exiting the patient chair, a third status includes out of the patient chair (see para. 0149 – “The orientations of the care receiver P1 estimated by the orientation estimation component 12 include, for example, a standing position [output of chair], a seated position [positioned in chair], a supine position, a lateral recumbent position, a prone position, a half-sitting position [in process of exiting chair], and so forth.” can view the pose (status) of the person in the thermal image),
a fourth status is that the person is moving between the patient chair and the patient bed (see para. 0228 – “Next, in step S30, it is determined that the care receiver P1 is moving somewhere within the room 30 other than next to the bed or on the bed.”), and
a fifth status indicates that the person is falling based on a rate of change in the thermal radiation in the field of view (see para. 0219 – “That is, after the infrared image G1 is acquired from the infrared array sensors 21 a and 21 b in step S11, it is determined in step S21 whether or not the orientation of the care receiver P1 in the infrared image G1 is indicates that the person has fallen down.”).
Claims 4 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Dumoulin, as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and in further view of Smith et al. (US 20100245090 A1, published September 30, 2010), hereinafter referred to as Smith.
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Tanaka in view of Dumoulin teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 and 13 above.
Tanaka in view of Dumoulin teaches an alert system (Tanaka: see para. 0164 – “Also, a warning display that combines text information may include, for example, a text display such as “care receiver needs nursing care!” A warning sound such as a beep may also be used in conjunction with the display.”), but does not explicitly teach alerting the person to return to the position in the second patient support apparatus (chair) when the person is determined to be exiting the second patient support apparatus (chair).
Whereas, Smith, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches alerting the person to return to the position in the second patient support apparatus (chair) when the person is determined to be exiting the second patient support apparatus (chair) (telling patient to return to chair) (see para. 0066 – “…f the patient were to exit the bed or chair, the temperature recorded by the sensors would quickly decrease to near the ambient temperature, thereby providing an indication that the patient was no long present and that an alarm should be sounded if the electronic monitor is so programmed.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified an alert system, as disclosed in Tanaka in view of Dumoulin, by alerting the person to return to the position in the second patient support apparatus (chair) when the person is determined to be exiting the second patient support apparatus (chair), as disclosed in Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to warn the person to not move without assistance and to return to the chair.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Dumoulin, as applied to claim 6 and 17 above, and in further view of Lightcap et al. (US 20200060910 A1, published February 27, 2020), hereinafter referred to as Lightcap.
Regarding claim 8 and 19, Tanaka in view of Dumoulin teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 6 and 17 above.
Tanaka in view of Dumoulin detecting a temperature of a person, but does not explicitly teach identifying pressure sores on the person based on the detected temperature of the person.
Whereas, Lightcap, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches identifying pressure sores on the person based on the detected temperature of the person (see para. 0032 – “…the video processor may be coupled to a thermal camera to detect the patient's heat signature suggesting a potential pressure ulcer in a given location.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified detecting a temperature of a person, as disclosed in Tanaka in view of Dumoulin, by also identifying pressure sores on the person based on the detected temperature of the person, as disclosed in Lightcap. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine if the patient or the bed needs to be repositioned, as taught in Lightcap (see para. 0046).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Aharoni et al. (US 20160256101 A1, published September 8, 2016) discloses the camera can be mounted on a suitable fixture, attached to the Surface on which the patient is positioned, (arm-chair, stretcher or bed) to conveniently display the image of the veins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights