DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action replies to reissue application, filed Feb. 7, 2025 that amends the specification to provide notice this is a continuation reissue application, adds new claims 21-40 and cancels original claims 1-20. Claims 21-40 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-40 of U.S. Patent No. RE50344 in view of U.S. Pat. App. No. 2009/0119843, hereafter “Rodgers”. Lacking evidence to the contrary, with broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims without reading limitations from disclosure of ‘823 into the claims herein, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in comparing Claims 21-40 of RE50344 to Claims 21-40 of the instant application, the Claims of RE50344 contain same subject matter that overlaps system/method herein. In general, the claims of RE50344 overlap the claims herein to recite same/similar structure performing same/similar process as recited in claims herein for same purpose of systems/methods utilizing video cameras for monitoring patients, caregivers, equipment, and other items as shown in table next.
Claim 21 of 19/047970 (herein)
Claim 21 of RE50344
A system comprising:
A system comprising:
a computer device configured to:
receive signals representative of images, captured by one or more devices, of a patient positioned on a bed or chair;
a computer device configured to:
receive signals representative of images, captured by one or more devices including one or more video cameras, one or more depth sensing devices, or one or more thermal imaging devices, of a patient positioned on a bed or chair;
identify a plurality of points corresponding to the patient;
identify a skeleton of the patient within the images, the skeleton including a plurality of points corresponding to three dimensional locations of one or more of the patient's head, trunk, arms, and legs;
determine depths of the plurality of points relative to the bed or chair based on the images or information from the one or more devices that captured the images;
determine information about the patient using movements or positions of one or more of the plurality of points and the depth of the plurality of points;
and communicate an alert based on the information about the patient.
determine depths of the plurality of points relative to the bed or chair based on the images or information from the one or more devices that captured the images;
determine information about the patient using movements or positions of one or more of the plurality of points and the depths of the plurality of points, wherein the information includes one or more of whether the patient is about to exit, or has exited, the bed or chair, or whether the patient has fallen; and communicate an alert based on the information about the patient.
Claim 21 of RE50344 overlaps/encompasses claim 22 herein.
Claim 22 of RE50344 overlaps/encompasses claim 23 herein.
Claim 23 of RE50344 overlaps/encompasses claim 24 herein.
Claim 24 of RE50344 overlaps/encompasses claim 25 herein.
Claim 25 of RE50344 overlaps/encompasses claim 26 herein.
Claim 26 of RE50344 overlaps/encompasses claim 27 herein.
Claim 27 or 28 of RE50344 overlaps/encompasses claim 28 herein.
Claims 29-39 of RE50344 respectively overlap/encompass claim 29-39 herein.
Claim 40 of 19/047970 (herein)
Claim 40 of RE50344
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
receiving signals representative of images, captured by one or more devices, of a patient positioned on a bed or chair;
receiving signals representative of images, captured by one or more devices including one or more video cameras, one or more depth sensing devices, or one or more thermal imaging devices, of a patient positioned on a bed or chair;
identifying a plurality of points corresponding to the patient;
identifying a skeleton of the patient within the images, the skeleton including a plurality of points corresponding to three dimensional locations of one or more of the patient's head, trunk, arms, and legs;
determining depths of the plurality of points relative to the bed or chair based on the images or information from the one or more devices that captured the images;
determining information about the patient using movements or positions of one or more of the plurality of points and the depths of the plurality of points,
and communicating an alert based on the information about the patient.
determining depths of the plurality of points relative to the bed or chair based on the images or information from the one or more devices that captured the images;
determining information about the patient using movements or positions of one or more of the plurality of points and the depths of the plurality of points, wherein the information includes one or more of whether the patient is about to exit, or has exited, the bed or chair, or whether the patient has fallen;
and communicating an alert based on the information about the patient.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10904492 in view of U.S. Pat. App. No. 2009/0119843, hereafter “Rodgers”.
Claims 1-20 of 10904492 overlap/encompass claims 21-40 herein in similar fashion as in table as discussed next. Lacking evidence to the contrary, with broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims without reading limitations from disclosure of ‘823 into the claims herein, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because in comparing Claims 1-20 of 10904492 to Claims 21-40 of the instant application, the Claims of 10904492 contain same subject matter that overlaps system/method herein where a computer device “configured to use the signals” with a camera “to capture images of the bed and a patient positioned on the bed, the camera adapted to output signals representative of the images”, where a camera is a device to capture images and the “computer” “is adapted to identify” and “to determine” and where a bed or chair involves “a patient support surface supported on the base and configured to support a patient thereon” in ‘492 involves a computer device “receiving signals representative of images captured by … devices”, “identify a plurality of points corresponding to a patient”, “determine depths of… points relative to the bed” and “determine information about the patient using movements or positions… of the points and the depth of the points” herein. In general, the claims of 10904492 overlap the claims herein to recite same/similar structure performing same/similar process as recited in claims herein for same purpose of systems/methods utilizing video cameras for monitoring patients, caregivers, equipment, and other items as shown in table next.
Claim 21 of 19/047970 (herein)
Claim 1 of 10904492 (‘492)
A system comprising:
A bed system for a patient care facility comprising:
a computer device configured to:
receive signals representative of images, captured by one or more devices, of a patient positioned on a bed or chair;
identify a plurality of points corresponding to the patient;
determine depths of the plurality of points relative to the bed or chair based on the images or information from the one or more devices that captured the images;
determine information about the patient using movements or positions of one or more of the plurality of points and the depth of the plurality of points;
a bed comprising a base, a plurality of wheels coupled to the base, a patient support surface supported on the base and configured to support a patient thereon, a plurality of siderails positioned adjacent the patient support surface and adapted to move between up and down positions;
a camera positioned within a room of the patient care facility and configured to capture images of the bed and a patient positioned on the bed, the camera adapted to output signals representative of the images;
a database containing shape information regarding a shape of the bed and a shape of the siderails;
a computer device in communication with the camera and the database, the computer device configured to use the signals and the shape information to identify both the bed and a partial skeleton of the patient within the images, the partial skeleton including a plurality of points corresponding to three dimensional locations of the patient's head, arms, and hands, the computer device adapted to monitor movement of the points relative to each other and relative to the bed in order to determine at least one of the following: (a) if the patient is eating; (b) is the patient is sleeping; or (c) if the patient is entrapped in any of the siderails;
Claim 2 further requires “wherein the camera includes a depth sensing device adapted to detect a first distance between the depth sensing device and the bed and a second distance between the depth sensing device and the partial skeleton.”
and communicate an alert based on the information about the patient.
Claim 5 further requires “wherein the computer device is in communication with a nurse call system and adapted forward a message to the nurse call system when the computer device determines that the patient is entrapped.”
In the alternative regarding “communicate an alert” step/function where claim 1 of ‘492 lacks that function/step, related reference Rodgers describes to communicate an alert to a nurse station based on information about the patient, such as when process determines (“based on information about the patient using movements or positions of the plurality of points”) a patient is preparing to exit the bed.
Cameras 208 and 210 (as well as any other cameras at a patient location) can continuously monitor patient 206 resting on bed 204 (or any other platform support). Cameras 208 and 210 (as well as any other cameras at a patient location) can capture a series of images of patient 206 resting on bed 204 (or any other platform support). The series of images can be captured as video data streams 216A and 218A and can be sent to computer system 220 for analysis.
Computer system 220 can receive video data streams 216A and 218A from cameras 208 and 210 respectively. Computer system 220 can analyze video data streams 216A and/or 218A to determine the position of patient 206 on bed 204. Computer system can compare the position of patient 206 to profile data 225 (profile data related to support exiting for patient 206).
…
A comparison module 226 of the computer system 220 can analyze the video streams 216A, 218A and, using one or more algorithms (e.g., that may be known in the art or that may be developed specifically for this system), determines the location and/or any movements of patient 206. This information is compared to patient specific profile data 225 from a patient profile 224 that corresponds to patient 206. In the absence of predicted support exiting or other triggering event, video streams 216A and 218A are typically not viewed by any human but are deleted or simply not stored or archived. This helps protect patient privacy.
…
Optionally computer system 220 can also sends alert 228 to central station 230 (e.g., nurse's station) that patient 206 may be attempting to exit support 204. In addition to the alert 228, at least one of video streams 216B and 218B from cameras 208 and 210 and/or a modified video stream (not shown) from computer system 220 is sent to an A/V interface 234 at central station 230 for human verification of actual patient support exiting. The patient 206 is advantageously notified of potential active viewing by staff to satisfy HIPAA regulations (e.g., by a chime, prerecorded message, e.g., "camera is actively viewing", or visual indication, e.g., flashing or illuminated words, TV raster pattern). A provider 232 views the video stream(s) from patient room 202, determines whether the patient 206 is in fact preparing to exit the bed 204 or other support, and provides verification input 236 to an appropriate interface device (not shown) at station 230, which sends verification 238 to the computer system 220. Verification 238 may either confirm or reject the determination of patient support exiting. Verification 238 can also instruct computer system 220 to stop the lowering of a platform support if lowering would in fact be more harmful to patient 206. When viewing is terminated, the patient may be notified of this fact by, e.g., a tone or pre-recorded message ("active viewing is terminated").
Id., [0056]-[0061], emphasis added.
Rodgers is deemed herein to be relevant prior art due to either being in the same field of endeavor or being reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Applicant was faced. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The level of ordinary skill in the art is shown by the applied art herein. Since claims of 10904492 and Rodgers each regard a system/method with capture devices that output signals of those captured images to a computer that determines movement/position of a body or body part of a patient, in consideration consistent with US Supreme Court decision in KSR that ‘known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art’, in this case, it would have been obvious to an artisan to add “communicate an alert based on the information about the patient” as disclosed by Rodgers to improve the system of ‘492 claims to notify caregivers when system/method deems patient is attempting to exit the support platform (Id., [0009]-[0010], [0027], [0034], [0046]-[0047], [0052]-[0054], [0068], [0076], [0091]-[0095], FIGS. 1-6C, 10 and 11) for patient safety so as to prevent patient falling or to notify caregiver/nurse to assist patient.
Claim 22 herein is overlapped/encompassed by “a partial skeleton of the patient” and “head, arms, and hands” recited in claim 1 of 10904492.
Claim 23 herein recites “wherein to determine the information about the patient, the computer device is configured to: estimate a likelihood of the patient leaving the bed or chair using the movements or positions of the one or more of the plurality of points; and determine the information about the patient based on the estimated likelihood” and claim 24 recites “wherein the computer device is further configured to perform a comparison of the estimated likelihood to a threshold, and wherein to determine the information about the patient, the computer device is configured to determine the information about the patient based on the comparison”; while, claims of 10904492 determine movement and/or position of patient body relative to support surface of a bed that determine whether body patient is “to determine … extended through any of the siderails” (claim 6) or “wherein the partial skeleton of the patient further includes points corresponding to three dimensional locations of the patient's feet, and wherein the computer device is further adapted to determine if a location of the points corresponding to the patient's feet relative to the bed to determine if the patient's feet have extended outside a boundary of the bed” (claim 7) that overlap the functions in claims 23 and 24 herein for breadth of “leaving the bed or chair” herein. In the alternative, to the extent, a POSITA/artisan would interpret claims of 10904492 lack “wherein to determine the information about the patient, the computer device is configured to: estimate a likelihood of the patient leaving the bed or chair using the movements or positions of the one or more of the plurality of points; and determine the information about the patient based on the estimated likelihood” and “wherein the computer device is further configured to perform a comparison of the estimated likelihood to a threshold, and wherein to determine the information about the patient, the computer device is configured to determine the information about the patient based on the comparison” such determining, estimating and comparing as to whether a patient is leaving a support platform when compared to a threshold model data set is well known as shown by related reference Rodgers (Rodgers, [0009] “representative of movements having some probability of indicating platform support exiting”, [0010] “determines that the motion capture pattern summary is sufficiently similar to one of the one or more movement pattern data sets in the library of movement pattern data sets. The computer system detects that the patient is attempting to exit the support platform based on the determined similarity… attempt to exit the support platform”, [0027], [0034] “representative of movements having some probability of indicating platform support exiting”, [0046] “detecting that patient 118 is attempting to exit support platform 103”, [0047] “patient 118 is attempt to exit support platform 103”, [0053] “patient monitoring, more particularly with respect to monitoring potential support exiting, detecting a position and/or movement of a patient that is predictive of support exiting”; see also Id, [0052], [0054], [0068], [0076], [0091]-[0095], FIGS. 1-6C, 10 and 11). The detecting/determining, probability and comparison to a stored data set as a threshold as discussed in Rodgers involves/overlaps “wherein to determine the information about the patient, the computer device is configured to: estimate a likelihood of the patient leaving the bed or chair using the movements or positions of the one or more of the plurality of points; and determine the information about the patient based on the estimated likelihood” and “wherein the computer device is further configured to perform a comparison of the estimated likelihood to a threshold, and wherein to determine the information about the patient, the computer device is configured to determine the information about the patient based on the comparison” herein. Rodgers is deemed herein to be relevant prior art due to either being in the same field of endeavor or being reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Applicant was faced. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The level of ordinary skill in the art is shown by the applied art herein. Since claims of 10904492 and Rodgers each regard a system/method with capture devices that output signals of those captured images to a computer that determines movement/position of a body or body part of a patient, in consideration consistent with US Supreme Court decision in KSR that ‘known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art’, in this case, it would have been obvious to an artisan to add “wherein to determine the information about the patient, the computer device is configured to: estimate a likelihood of the patient leaving the bed or chair using the movements or positions of the one or more of the plurality of points; and determine the information about the patient based on the estimated likelihood” and “wherein the computer device is further configured to perform a comparison of the estimated likelihood to a threshold, and wherein to determine the information about the patient, the computer device is configured to determine the information about the patient based on the comparison” as described by Rodgers to improve the system and method in claims of 10904492 to notify caregivers when system/method deems patient is attempting to exit the support platform (Id., [0009]-[0010], [0027], [0034], [0046]-[0047], [0052]-[0054], [0068], [0076], [0091]-[0095], FIGS. 1-6C, 10 and 11) for patient safety so as to prevent patient falling or to notify caregiver/nurse to assist patient.
Claims 25-27 herein are overlapped/encompassed by claim 1 (“a database containing shape information regarding a shape of the bed and a shape of the siderails”, “to use the signals and the shape information to identify both the bed and a partial skeleton of the patient within the images”, “if the patient is entrapped in any of the siderails”), by claim 2 (“wherein the camera includes a depth sensing device adapted to detect a first distance between the depth sensing device and the bed and a second distance between the depth sensing device and the partial skeleton”), by claim 4 (“to determine if the patient is entrapped in any of the siderails”), by claim 6 (“to determine if the patient's hand has extended through any of the siderails”) or claim 7 of 10904492 (“to determine if the patient's feet have extended outside a boundary of the bed”).
Claim 28 herein is overlapped/encompassed by claim 1 (“a database containing shape information regarding a shape of the bed and a shape of the siderails”, “to use the signals and the shape information to identify both the bed and a partial skeleton of the patient within the images”, “if the patient is entrapped in any of the siderails”), by claim 2 (“wherein the camera includes a depth sensing device adapted to detect a first distance between the depth sensing device and the bed and a second distance between the depth sensing device and the partial skeleton”), by claim 4 (“to determine if the patient is entrapped in any of the siderails”), by claim 6 (“to determine if the patient's hand has extended through any of the siderails” or claim 7 of 10904492 (“to determine if the patient's feet have extended outside a boundary of the bed”).
Claim 29 herein is overlapped/encompassed by claim 1 of 10904492 (“to capture images of the bed and a patient positioned on the bed, the camera adapted to output signals representative of the images”, “a computer device in communication with the camera and the database, the computer device configured to use the signals and the shape information to identify both the bed and a partial skeleton of the patient within the images”). Claim 29 does not require to display the captured images on a display device since that is not recited and a computer device does not display but the computer device does receive the output signals representative of the captured images for display as encompassed by claims of 10904492. In the alternative, such display of images on a display would be obvious in light of teachings in Rodgers [0061].
Claims 30-39 herein are overlapped/encompassed by claims 1-2 and 4-8 of 10904492.
Claim 40 herein regards a method that contains similar functions as recited in claim 21 herein; thus, the discussion above regarding claim 21 herein is relied on for claim 40 herein.
Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the US Patent 10,904,492 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Information Material to Patentability
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation. These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mark Sager whose telephone number is (571) 272-4454. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 6:30 AM - 3 PM, 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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571) 272-3744. 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.
/MARK SAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/JEFFREY D CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992