DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 16 and 27, and by dependency claims 17-26 and 28-35 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.
Regarding claims 16 and 27, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 16 and 19-26 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrovski (US Patent Application Publication 20110115635) in view of Hu (US Patent Application Publication 20110267196) in view of Smith (US Patent Application Publication 20120139732).
Regarding claim 16, Petrovski teaches a bed system comprising: a pad (Figure 2a; 14’) configured to receive a fluid (Paragraph 73); a pump (Paragraph 113) configured to circulate the fluid through the pad; a controller (Paragraph 74) in communication with the pump; and a sensor (Paragraph 109 “one or more additional sensors are provided, such as, for example, an occupant detection sensor (e.g. configured to automatically detect when an occupant is positioned on a bed or other seating assembly)”) configured to detect a presence of a user on the bed system, wherein the controller is configured to: operate the bed system in a dual alarm setting, wherein the dual alarm setting comprises the circulating fluid reaches a wake temperature (Paragraph 25 describes adjusting to a desired temperature at a desired time to wake the user); determine, via the sensor, that the user is not present on the bed system during the dual alarm setting operation (Paragraph 109). Petrovski does not teach the dual alarm setting comprises imparting a motion to the pad that occurs at substantially the same time that the circulating fluid reaches a wake temperature, and terminate the dual alarm setting in response to determining that the user is not present on the bed system. Hu teaches the dual alarm setting comprises imparting a motion to the pad that occurs at substantially the same time that the circulating fluid reaches a wake temperature (Paragraph 29). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to prevent an individual from building up a tolerance to an alarm” (Hu Paragraph 28). Petrovski and Hu do not teach terminate the dual alarm setting in response to determining that the user is not present on the bed system. Smith teaches terminate the dual alarm setting in response to determining that the user is not present on the bed system (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and Smith (directed to an alarm which terminates when a user is not detected) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm and a presence sensor which is used to terminate an alarm when a user is not detected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the system “to adjust their operation to account for patients moving before they have been warned by the device” (Smith Paragraph 4)
Regarding claim 19, Petrovski does not teach the controller is configured to receive a user-defined wake window, and wherein the controller is configured to activate the dual alarm setting at a time within the user-defined wake window based on a detected sleep state of the user. Hu teaches the controller is configured to receive a user-defined wake window, and wherein the controller is configured to activate the dual alarm setting at a time within the user-defined wake window based on a detected sleep state of the user (Paragraphs 23-24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to prevent an individual from building up a tolerance to an alarm” (Hu Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 20, Petrovski does not teach the detected sleep state is a non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep state. Hu teaches the detected sleep state is a non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep state (Paragraph 17 describes the system using a biometric sensor to sense sleep information of a user and compile sleep cycle data, Paragraph 22 then describes using sleep cycle data to wake a user at an optimal sleep state to result in the individual feeling more rested, which would necessarily be non REM sleep as being awoken during REM sleep would not result in a user feeling more rested). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to prevent an individual from building up a tolerance to an alarm” (Hu Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 21, Petrovski teaches the controller is configured to initiate a temperature change of the fluid a predetermined amount of time prior to a wake time associated with the dual alarm setting, such that the pad reaches the wake temperature at the wake time (Paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 22, Petrovski does not teach the motion to the pad comprises a vibration having an adjustable intensity level, and wherein the controller is configured to receive the adjustable intensity level from a user device. Hu teaches the motion to the pad comprises a vibration having an adjustable intensity level, and wherein the controller is configured to receive the adjustable intensity level from a user device (Paragraph 16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to prevent an individual from building up a tolerance to an alarm” (Hu Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 23, Petrovski teaches the pad comprises a first zone and a second zone configured to receive the fluid independently, and wherein the controller is configured to operate the dual alarm setting in the first zone independently of the second zone (Figure 1; 11a and 11b and Paragraph 72, temperature settings apply to the alarms as described in Paragraphs 15 and 25 as well).
Regarding claim 24, Petrovski teaches the controller is configured to receive the dual alarm setting wirelessly from a smartphone application that is paired with the controller (Paragraph 86).
Regarding claim 25, Petrovski teaches the pump, the controller, and a valve assembly configured to regulate the fluid are housed together inside a common housing as a single unit that is separate from the pad (Figure 2a shows that 20a and 20b and their valves are separate from the pad and Figures such as Figure 9 show the controller is packaged within the box spring and at least Figure 251 shows the fluid transfer units also packaged within the box spring, thus the controller and pumps are packaged as a single unit separate from the pad).
Regarding claim 26, Petrovski teaches a cooling element, wherein the controller is configured to cool the fluid to the wake temperature (Abstract, and Paragraphs 15 and 25).
Claim 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrovski (US Patent Application Publication 20110115635) in view of Hu (US Patent Application Publication 20110267196) in view of Smith (US Patent Application Publication 20120139732) in view of Howell (US Patent Application Publication 20080262657).
Regarding claim 17, a mattress comprising a mattress cover (Paragraph 184), foam (Paragraph 127 and Figure 2a; 10’), and the pad (Figure 2a; 14’). Petrovski does not teach an adjustable foundation configured to articulate the mattress, wherein the controller is further configured to transmit a command to the adjustable foundation to move to a raised position as part of the dual alarm setting. Howell teaches an adjustable foundation configured to articulate the mattress, wherein the controller is further configured to transmit a command to the adjustable foundation to move to a raised position as part of the dual alarm setting (Paragraph 39). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and Smith (directed to an alarm which terminates when a user is not detected) and Howell (directed to an adjustable foundation alarm component) and arrived at a bed with temperature, adjustable foundation, and vibrational alarms and a presence sensor which is used to terminate an alarm when a user is not detected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to have the capability of programmed automation of surface orientation and/or firmness modifications for specified durations.” (Howell Paragraph 5).
Claim 18, 27, 29-33 and 35 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrovski (US Patent Application Publication 20110115635) in view of Hu (US Patent Application Publication 20110267196) in view of Ogino (US Patent 5902255) in view of Smith (US Patent Application Publication 20120139732).
Regarding claim 18, Petrovski does not teach the sensor is a biometric sensor, and wherein determining that the user is not present comprises detecting an absence of a biometric signal comprising at least one of a heart rate or a respiration rate of the user. Ogino teaches the user sensor is a biometric sensor (Abstract) and wherein determining that the user is not present comprises detecting an absence of a biometric signal comprising at least one of a heart rate or a respiration rate of the user (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and Smith (directed to an alarm which terminates when a user is not detected) and Ogino (directed to a biometric bed presence sensor) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm and biometric presence sensor which terminates an alarm based on user presence. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for judging whether or not the human body is present on the bed or the seat in accordance with the signal of the body movement detecting means” (Ogino Column 3; lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 27, Petrovski teaches a bed system comprising: a pad (Figure 2a; 14’) configured to receive a fluid (Paragraph 73); a pump (Paragraph 113) configured to circulate the fluid through the pad; a user sensor (Paragraph 109 “one or more additional sensors are provided, such as, for example, an occupant detection sensor (e.g. configured to automatically detect when an occupant is positioned on a bed or other seating assembly)”) configured to detect a user signal of a user; and a controller (Paragraph 74) in communication with the pump and the biometric sensor, wherein the controller is configured to: operate the bed system in a dual alarm setting, wherein the dual alarm setting comprises the circulating fluid reaches a wake temperature (Paragraph 25 describes adjusting to a desired temperature at a desired time to wake the user); monitor the user signal of the user via the user sensor during the dual alarm setting operation; determine that the user is not present on the bed system based on an absence of the user signal (Paragraph 109). Petrovski does not teach the dual alarm setting comprises imparting a motion to the pad that occurs at substantially the same time that the circulating fluid reaches a wake temperature, and that the user sensor is biometric configured to detect a biometric signal of a user, and terminate the dual alarm setting in response to determining that the user is not present on the bed system. Hu teaches the dual alarm setting comprises imparting a motion to the pad that occurs at substantially the same time that the circulating fluid reaches a wake temperature (Paragraph 29). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to prevent an individual from building up a tolerance to an alarm” (Hu Paragraph 28). Petrovski and Hu do not teach the user sensor is biometric configured to detect a biometric signal of a user, and terminate the dual alarm setting in response to determining that the user is not present on the bed system. Ogino teaches the user sensor is biometric configured to detect a biometric signal of a user (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and Ogino (directed to a biometric bed presence sensor) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm and biometric presence sensor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “for judging whether or not the human body is present on the bed or the seat in accordance with the signal of the body movement detecting means” (Ogino Column 3; lines 20-25). Petrovski, Hu, and Ogino do not teach terminate the dual alarm setting in response to determining that the user is not present on the bed system. Smith teaches terminate the dual alarm setting in response to determining that the user is not present on the bed system (Abstract). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and Ogino (directed to a biometric bed presence sensor) and Smith (directed to an alarm which terminates when a user is not detected) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm and biometric presence sensor which is used to terminate an alarm when a user is not detected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the system “to adjust their operation to account for patients moving before they have been warned by the device” (Smith Paragraph 4)
Regarding claim 29, Petrovski teaches the wake temperature is a cooled temperature (Paragraph 15) lower than a room temperature (Paragraph 25 says the user can set a desired wake temperature for a desired wake time, which may be any temperature including one lower than room temperature as the bed is capable of cooling), and wherein the controller is configured to cool the circulating fluid to reach the wake temperature (Paragraph 119).
Regarding claim 30, Petrovski does not teach the controller is configured to receive a wake window comprising a window start time and a window end time, and wherein the controller is configured to activate the dual alarm setting at a time within the wake window based on the biometric signal. Hu teaches the controller is configured to receive a wake window comprising a window start time and a window end time, and wherein the controller is configured to activate the dual alarm setting at a time within the wake window based on the biometric signal (Paragraphs 23-24). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to prevent an individual from building up a tolerance to an alarm” (Hu Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 31, Petrovski does not teach the controller is configured to determine a sleep state of the user based on the biometric signal, and wherein the controller triggers the dual alarm setting upon determining the sleep state is a non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep state. Hu teaches the controller is configured to determine a sleep state of the user based on the biometric signal, and wherein the controller triggers the dual alarm setting upon determining the sleep state is a non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep state (Paragraph 17 describes the system using a biometric sensor to sense sleep information of a user and compile sleep cycle data, Paragraph 22 then describes using sleep cycle data to wake a user at an optimal sleep state to result in the individual feeling more rested, which would necessarily be non REM sleep as being awoken during REM sleep would not result in a user feeling more rested). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to prevent an individual from building up a tolerance to an alarm” (Hu Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 32, Petrovski does not teach the controller is configured to receive a signal representative of a motion of the user or a gesture of the user, and wherein the controller is configured to dismiss the dual alarm setting in response to the signal. Hu teaches the controller is configured to receive a signal representative of a motion of the user or a gesture of the user, and wherein the controller is configured to dismiss the dual alarm setting in response to the signal (Paragraph 23 describes a touch screen being used to set an alarm, and necessarily to turn off an alarm as well, where the touch screen would capture a motion of the user in doing so). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to prevent an individual from building up a tolerance to an alarm” (Hu Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 33, Petrovski does not teach the motion to the pad comprises a vibration pattern, and wherein the controller is configured to progressively change an intensity of the vibration pattern over a predetermined duration. Hu teaches the motion to the pad comprises a vibration pattern, and wherein the controller is configured to progressively change an intensity of the vibration pattern over a predetermined duration (Paragraph 16). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and arrived at a bed with a temperature and vibrational alarm . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to prevent an individual from building up a tolerance to an alarm” (Hu Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 35, Petrovski teaches the pump and the controller are housed together inside a common housing as a single unit that is separate from the pad (Figure 2a shows that 20a and 20b are separate from the pad and Figures such as Figure 9 show the controller is packaged within the box spring and at least Figure 251 shows the fluid transfer units also packaged within the box spring, thus the controller and pumps are packaged as a single unit separate from the pad).
Claim 28 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Petrovski (US Patent Application Publication 20110115635) in view of Hu (US Patent Application Publication 20110267196) in view of Ogino (US Patent 5902255) in view of Smith (US Patent Application Publication 20120139732) in view of Howell (US Patent Application Publication 20080262657).
Regarding claim 28, Petrovski teaches a mattress comprising the pad (Figure 2a; 14’), a mattress cover (Paragraph 184), and foam (Paragraph 127 and Figure 2a; 10’). Petrovski does not teach an adjustable foundation configured to support the bed system, wherein the controller is configured to transmit a command to the adjustable foundation to articulate to a raised position. Howell teaches an adjustable foundation configured to support the bed system, wherein the controller is configured to transmit a command to the adjustable foundation to articulate to a raised position (Paragraph 39). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Petrovski (directed to a bed with a temperature alarm) and Hu (directed to a bed with a vibrational alarm) and Ogino (directed to a biometric bed presence sensor) and Smith (directed to an alarm which terminates when a user is not detected) and Howell (directed to an adjustable foundation alarm component) and arrived at a bed with temperature, adjustable foundation, and vibrational alarms and biometric presence sensor which is used to terminate an alarm when a user is not detected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination “to have the capability of programmed automation of surface orientation and/or firmness modifications for specified durations.” (Howell Paragraph 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 34, since neither Petrovski nor Ogino teach transmitting the biometric signal to a remote server for analysis, and then receiving the wake temperature based on the biometric signal analysis, this would require not only modification of a secondary reference but would also be a five reference rejection on top of that, thus such a rejection would be improper hindsight.
Double Patenting
Claims 16-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-40 of U.S. Patent No. 12029323 in view of Smith (US Patent Application Publication 20120139732). Both claim sets relate to a dual alarm bed with a motion and temperature alarm component, and Smith teaches the alarm termination based on sensed user presence as covered in the rejections above.
Claims 16-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of U.S. Patent No. 12193576 in view of Smith (US Patent Application Publication 20120139732). Both claim sets relate to a dual alarm bed with a motion and temperature alarm component, and Smith teaches the alarm termination based on sensed user presence as covered in the rejections above.
Claims 16-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of U.S. Patent No. 12185839 in view of Smith (US Patent Application Publication 20120139732). Both claim sets relate to a dual alarm bed with a motion and temperature alarm component, and Smith teaches the alarm termination based on sensed user presence as covered in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN J MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)270-0362. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesdays 12pm-10pm and Thursdays 12pm-10pm.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 5712728525. 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.
/MORGAN J MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
