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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-19 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 101 rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/15/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 4-8, and 10-19 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.
For claims 1 and 13, the limitation “the person is falling if an acceleration of the center of thermal radiation toward a floor exceeds a predetermined value” is indefinite. It is unclear how an acceleration is calculated using only one image (“a thermal image”) and without using an accelerometer, when acceleration is a change in velocity over a period of time (i.e., a plurality of images). For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner assumes a plurality of thermal images is used to detect an acceleration of a person towards a floor (falling).
Claims 4-8 and 10-12 are dependent of claim 1, and claims 14-19 are dependent of claim 13, and therefore rejected under the same 112(b) rejection as well.
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, 5-7, 10-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US 20200221977A1, published July 16, 2020) in view of Dumoulin et al. (US20160015277 A1, published January 21, 2016) and Ramzi (US 20150023551 A1, published January 22, 2015), hereinafter referred to as Tanaka, Dumoulin, and Ramzi, 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."),
generating, with a controller, a thermal image from the thermal radiation detected by the detector (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."),
displaying, on a remote display, the thermal image on a grid (Fig. 12, thermal image on a grid; 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).”), and
detecting, with the controller, a center of thermal radiation relative to the grid to determine a status of a person with the field of view from two of the at least five statuses (see para. 0030 – “The determination component makes a determination according to the degree of fluctuation in the position of the thermal center of gravity in an area near the person in the thermal image continuously acquired by the infrared sensor.”),
wherein a first of the at least five statuses includes determining, with the controller, that the person is falling if the thermal radiation exceeds a predetermined value (see para. 0201 – “In order to determine whether or not there has been a transition to having fallen (X), the infrared array sensors 21 a and 21 b calculate the sum of the statistical quantity of the region RV4 of the infrared image data captured from above, plus the statistical quantity of the region RH5 of the infrared image data captured from the side. When this sum of the statistical quantities is at or above a reference value THX, it is determined that there has been a shift to the orientation (X).”), and
wherein a second of the at least five statuses includes one of the following: positioned in the second patient support apparatus, in the process of exiting the second patient support apparatus, out of the second patient support apparatus, or moving between the second patient support apparatus and the first patient support apparatus (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. 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)
Tanaka in view of Dumoulin teaches determining if the person is falling based on a thermal image, but does not explicitly teach determining if the person is falling if an acceleration of the center of thermal radiation toward a floor exceeds a predetermined value.
Whereas, Ramzi, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein a first of the at least five statuses includes determining, with the controller, that the person is falling if an acceleration of the center of interest area toward a floor exceeds a predetermined value (Fig. 2; see para. 0043, 0048-0049 – “Thus, in step 25, the centre of gravity, or barycentre, of the detected movement is determined, and in step 27, this centre of gravity is located with respect to the regions of interest…Thus, at the end of step 31, for each analysed point, its velocity (magnitude and orientation), and its acceleration at any instant are known. If, for this point (or these points), the velocity exceeds, in magnitude, a predefined threshold velocity and if the acceleration exceeds a predefined threshold acceleration, a fall is detected, step 33.”).
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 determining if the person is falling based on a thermal image, as disclosed in Tanaka in view of Dumoulin, by determining if the person is falling if an acceleration of the center of thermal radiation toward a floor exceeds a predetermined value, as disclosed in Ramzi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce computations to be performed, as taught in Ramzi (see para. 0044).
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 21a and 21b, 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 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 12, 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 (see para. 0219 "That is, after the infrared image G1 is acquired from the infrared array sensors 21 a and 21 b in stepS11, it is determined in stepS21 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 and Ramzi, 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 and Ramzi teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 and 13 above.
Tanaka in view of Dumoulin and Ramzi 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 "...if 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 Tanaka in view of Dumoulin and Ramzi, 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 under35 U.S.C.103as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Dumoulin and Ramzi, 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 and Ramzi teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 6 and 17 above.
Tanaka in view of Dumoulin and Ramzi 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 and Ramzi, 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:
Guo et al. (CN 111274954 A, published June 12, 2020) discloses a real-time fall detection method based on the position and acceleration of the person tracked in the video frames.
Lin et al. (CN 105786186 A, published July 20, 2016) discloses the infrared thermal imaging, three-shaft test monitoring, heart rate monitoring detects state of human body, and gives an alarm, can quickly judge human is in the fall state, improve the monitoring and determining speed and reduce the misjudgement rate.
Jiang et al. (CN 112819855 A, published May 18, 2021) discloses a person falling detection method based on infrared thermal images.
F. Riquelme et al, “eHomeSeniors Dataset: An Infrared Thermal Sensor Dataset for Automatic Fall Detection Research”, vol. 19, no. 4565, Sensors, pp. 1-16, 2019 discloses the barycenter of the retained pixels in three heat map frames of a volunteer during the realization of a fall (Fig. 5).
E. Stone et al, “Fall Detection in Homes of Older Adults Using the Microsoft Kinect”, IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 290-301, Jan. 2015 discloses a two-stage fuzzy logic-based approach incorporating features such as centroid height, centroid velocity, and Eigen-based height of a person, which identifies intervals when a person is thought to be on the ground, and then uses the acceleration of the centroid during a 10 s window prior to the on ground interval to compute a confidence that an impact occurred. These features are then used to compute a fall confidence.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights