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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 22 and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 22 and 34 are objected to because “the contactless sensing device” should recite “the at least one contactless sensing device”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder (i.e., “device”, “mechanism”) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“contactless sensing device configured to …” in claims 1, 28, and all claims depending therefrom.
“adjustable positioning mechanism configured to …” in claims 2, 30, and all claims depending therefrom.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 - 3, 6 - 8, 16, 19 - 20, 22 - 23, 28 - 31, 33 - 36, 39, and 42 - 43 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.
Claim limitation “contactless sensing device configured to …” in claims 1 and 28 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear whether the ‘contactless sensing device’ is intended to refer to a sensor/radar, a processor that analyzes the output from the sensor/radar, or both. At least claims 1 and 22 require that the ‘contactless sensing device’ comprises circuitry of some sort because these claims recite limitations directed to detecting vital signs, and determining a movement index, respectively. However, at least claims 2, 3, 6, and 23 and fig. 25 suggest that the term refers to a sensor/radar, but not to a processor. It is noted that claim 23 specifically recites a processor that appears to be distinct from the ‘contactless sensing device’. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1 - 3, 6 - 8, 16, 19 - 20, 22 - 23, 28 - 31, 33 - 36, 39, and 42 - 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claims 1 and 28 read on a human because they recite an active state of “a patient position within the patient support apparatus”.
Claim 22 reads on a human because it recites an active state of “the patient supported by the patient platform”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 - 3, 6 - 7, 16, 19 - 20, 22, 28 - 31, 33 - 35, 39, and 42 - 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fitzgibbons et al. (US 2021/0251519).
Regarding claims 1 and 28, Fitzgibbons shows a system for monitoring at least one vital sign of a patient, the system comprising:
a patient support apparatus (patient support system 100, [0182] and fig. 1) comprising:
a patient platform comprising: a plurality of body panels (fig. 1) including a backrest (mattress support deck 38, [0192] and fig. 1) for supporting at least a patient's torso (fig. 1);
a frame, the patient platform being mounted to the frame (frame 116, [0190] and fig. 1); and
at least one contactless sensing device (radar sensor 106, 108, 110, [0183] - [0184] and fig. 1, in combination with bed circuitry 112, [0201] and fig. 3) configured to be positioned in proximity to the patient support apparatus to detect at least one vital sign (patient's heartrate, breathing patterns, position, [0182]) within a respective predetermined field of detection, the at least one contactless sensing device being configured to:
transmit electromagnetic signals towards a portion of the body of the patient ([0183] - [0184] and fig. 1);
receive reflected electromagnetic signals ([0183] - [0184]); and
detect, based on the transmitted and received reflected electromagnetic signals, at least one vital sign of the patient within the predetermined field of detection, irrespective of: the patient's anthropomorphic measurements, a patient position within the patient support apparatus, a configuration of the patient support apparatus, and a location of the patient support apparatus (patient's heartrate, breathing patterns, position, [0182]).
Regarding claims 2 - 3, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Fitzgibbons further shows the at least one contactless sensing device is mounted to a respective adjustable positioning mechanism configured to adjust the at least one contactless sensing device to include the patient within the field of detection by positioning the at least one contactless sensing device along at least one translation axis (radar sensors 106, 108, 110 are movable along respective arms, [0194]).
Regarding claim 6, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Fitzgibbons further shows the at least one contactless sensing device is mounted to an underside of the backrest of the patient support apparatus (see indirect mounting of radar sensors 106, 108, 110 to underside of mattress support deck 38 in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Fitzgibbons further shows the at least one contactless sensing device is a single contactless sensing device comprising a sensor oriented at a respective angle towards a head end of the patient support apparatus (see radar sensors 106, 108, 110 in fig. 1), the respective angle being based on a field of view of the sensor to enlarge the field of detection (implicit).
Regarding claims 16 and 39, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Fitzgibbons further shows the at least one contactless sensing device is configured to use radiofrequency (RF) ranges comprising millimeter waves (millimeter waves, [0184]).
Regarding claims 19 - 20 and 42 - 43, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Fitzgibbons further shows the at least one vital sign of the patient comprises at least one of: a heart rate and a respiratory rate and the at least one contactless sensing device is configured to detect movements of the patient based on the transmitted and received reflected electromagnetic signals (patient's heartrate, breathing patterns, position, [0182]; [0206]).
Regarding claim 22, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Fitzgibbons further shows the contactless sensing device is configured to determine a movement index indicative of a level of motion of the patient supported by the patient platform (“alarm may be triggered if chest expansion …”, [0206]. The variable characterizing the movement is the “movement index”).
Regarding claims 29 - 31, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Fitzgibbons further shows the contactless sensing device is configured to coupled to the patient support apparatus by being mounted on a respective component of the patient support apparatus (see radar sensor 106, 108, 110 mounted to a component in fig 1), wherein the at least one contactless sensing device is mounted to a respective adjustable positioning mechanism configured to adjust the at least one contactless sensing device to include a portion of a body of the patient within the field of detection, the respective adjustable positioning mechanism being coupled to the respective component of the patient support apparatus and configured to position the at least one contactless sensing device along at least one
translation axis (radar sensors 106, 108, 110 are movable along respective arms, [0194]).
Regarding claim 33, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Fitzgibbons further shows the at least one contactless sensing device is coupled to an underside of the backrest (see indirect coupling of radar sensors 106, 108, 110 to mattress support deck 38 in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 34, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Fitzgibbons further shows the at least one contactless sensing device is positioned and oriented towards the patient's lower back (see orientation of radar sensors 106, 108, 110 in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 35, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Fitzgibbons further shows the at least one contactless sensing device is a single contactless sensing device comprising a sensor oriented at a respective angle towards a head end of the patient support apparatus (see radar sensors 106, 108, 110 in fig. 1), the respective angle being based on a field of view of the sensor to enlarge the field of detection (implicit).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgibbons in view of Soreefan et al. (US 2020/0155040, of record)
Regarding claims 8 and 36, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above.
Fitzgibbons fails to show the respective angle corresponds to 90 degrees minus the field of view of the sensor in degrees.
Soreefan discloses monitoring subject positioning, movement, and vital signs. Soreefan teaches an orientation angle that includes a plurality of respective angles, including a respective angle that corresponds to 90 degrees minus the field of view of the sensor in degrees (“monitoring device 110 … movable with respect to the ceiling 120… articulating arm that extends or retracts … movable along one or more tracks mounted … rotatably mounted … ball and socket configuration”, [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Fitzgibbons to have the orientation angle include a plurality of respective angles, including a respective angle that corresponds to 90 degrees minus the field of view of the sensor in degrees the respective angle corresponds to 90 degrees minus the field of view of the sensor in degrees, as taught by Soreefan, in order to adjust the orientation angle as desired. The choice of how to position a sensing device relative to a patient is a routine matter to those of ordinary skill in the art that is conventionally used to optimize sensing signals.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fitzgibbons in view of Receveur et al. (EP 3839973, of record)
Regarding claim 23, Fitzgibbons discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above.
Fitzgibbons fails to show receiving a set of movement indexes for a given period of time; classifying, using a trained machine learning model, each respective movement index of the set of movement indexes during the given period of time as being one of: a respective minor movement and a respective major movement; and determining, based on a number of respective minor movements and a number of respective major movements, a mobility level of the patient during the period of time.
Receveur discloses automated mobility assessment. Receveur teaches receiving a set of movement indexes for a given period of time; classifying, using a trained machine learning model, each respective movement index of the set of movement indexes during the given period of time as being one of: a respective minor movement and a respective major movement; and determining, based on a number of respective minor movements and a number of respective major movements, a mobility level of the patient during the period of time (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Fitzgibbons to include receiving a set of movement indexes for a given period of time; classifying, using a trained machine learning model, each respective movement index of the set of movement indexes during the given period of time as being one of: a respective minor movement and a respective major movement; and determining, based on a number of respective minor movements and a number of respective major movements, a mobility level of the patient during the period of time, as taught by Receveur, in order to determine fall risk, as suggested by Receveur (abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIE R DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 PST.
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 at (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 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.
/AMELIE R DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
