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 .
Status Of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 06/18/2025.
In a preliminary amendment, claim 1 was canceled. Claims 2-20 were added.
Claims 2-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections – 35 § 112(b)
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 2-20 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 2, recites in part, the limitation “a patient mobility device with access to at least a subset of the patient physiological data”. It is unclear what is meant by a patient mobility device. Is patient mobility device referring to software on a computer or smartphone or tablet? Applicant’s specification does not mention any “patient mobility device”. Claim 2 is therefore found to be indefinite, because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. All dependent claims, namely claims 3-20, are rejected for at least the same reason.
Claim 2, recites in part, the limitation “the patient mobility device analyzes the detected stimuli to determine patient orientation”. It is unclear how the detected stimuli is analyzed by the patient mobility device to determine patient orientation. Is the patient orientation determined using a formula or an algorithm applied during the analysis of the detected stimuli? Claim 2 is therefore found to be indefinite, because the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. All dependent claims, namely claims 3-20, are rejected for at least the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-20: Step 1
Claims 2-20 are drawn to a patient monitoring system, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine).
2-20: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites facilitating a determination regarding patient physiological data, wherein, in operation, the patient wearable sensor device is affixed to a patient associated with the patient physiological data and the reusable sensor detects stimuli associated with the patient, accessing at least a subset of the patient physiological data, analyzing the detected stimuli to determine patient orientation and generating an alert when the patient orientation and the patient physiological data indicate patient orientation should be changed.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior by manually following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. But for the recitation of generic computer components, these limitations encompass a user facilitating a determination regarding patient physiological data, wherein, in operation, the patient wearable sensor device is affixed to a patient associated with the patient physiological data and the reusable sensor detects stimuli associated with the patient, accessing at least a subset of the patient physiological data, analyzing the detected stimuli to determine patient orientation and generating an alert when the patient orientation and the patient physiological data indicate patient orientation should be changed. These steps could be carried out manually by a user following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 3-20 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the recitation of generic computer components, Claims 3-5 further define various stations. Claim 6 further defines various datastores. Claims 7, 13 and 19 further defines the wearable sensor device. Claims 8-10 and 20 further define the patient mobility device. Claim 11 further defines a mesh network. Claim 12 further define recharging. Claim 14 further defines the datastore. Claims 15, 17 and 18 further define the docking station Claim 16 further defines a wearable mount. Therefore, these claims are similarly drawn to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2-20: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas along with insignificant, extra-solution data gathering activity, and adding limitations similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Claim 2 recites the additional elements that data is provided from sensor device and patient mobility device performs data analysis.
Claims 2-20, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components: “patient mobility device analyzes and generates” which are similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Applicant’s specification does not appear to mention “patient mobility device”. The written description discloses that the recited computer components encompass generic components including “A "computer system," as used herein, may include or be implemented as a specific purpose computer system for carrying out the functionalities described in this paper. In general, a computer system will include a processor, memory, non-volatile storage, and an interface. A typical computer system will usually include at least a processor, memory, and a device (e.g., a bus) coupling the memory to the processor” (see at least Paragraph [0009]) and “A processor is considered "configured to execute a program" when at least one value associated with the program is stored in a register readable by the processor” (see at least Paragraph [0011]). See MPEP 2106.05 (h). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 2-20: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). As explained above, the generic computer components and machine learning are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e. receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result has also been found to be insufficient to show an improvement to technology, (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the high-level recitation of an output of results also fails to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art axe 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.
Claim 2-3, 5-6, 9-10 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekhar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2020/0135334 A1 in view of Perlman, U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2016/0302698 A1.
Claim 2:
Rajasekhar discloses the following limitations as shown below:
a patient wearable sensor device that includes a reusable sensor used to facilitate a determination regarding patient physiological data, wherein, in operation, the patient wearable sensor device is affixed to a patient associated with the patient physiological data and the reusable sensor detects stimuli associated with the patient (see at least Paragraph 99, system may include a wearable measurement device including one or more sensors for measuring one or more bodily metrics of the patient; Paragraph 100, The one or more sensors may include, for example, a pulse oximeter configured to measure oxygen saturation and/or heart rate (and/or other cardiac characteristics) of the patient, though other sensors may additionally or alternatively be included in the measurement device; Paragraph 111, The measurement device may include one or more sensors configured to measure one or more bodily metrics; Paragraph 155, in FIG. 7, a docking station 700 may include a housing including a receptacle 702 that is configured to removably receive a measurement device having one or more sensors for measuring one or more bodily metrics of the patient. A power supply 760 in the docking station may be configured to recharge a power source of the measurement device when the measurement device is docked in the docking station);
Rajasekhar may or may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Perlman as shown does:
a patient mobility device with access to at least a subset of the patient physiological data, wherein, in operation, the patient mobility device analyzes the detected stimuli to determine patient orientation and the patient mobility device generates an alert when the patient orientation and the patient physiological data indicate patient orientation should be changed (Perlman, see at least Paragraph 4, the techniques herein continuously monitor patient position and alert medical or other personnel of the need for turning or other patient manipulation. The system may be implemented within a medical or other care facility, or within a patient's home; Paragraph 5, The sensor is adapted to be carried by a patient and outputs spatial information associated with the patient's physical orientation. The monitor is in operative communication with the sensor to receive the spatial information together with temporal information).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Rajasekhar with Shen with the motivation to provide the benefit that “… Patients who suffer from conditions such as epilepsy, asthma, chronic heart disease, Alzheimer's, and other conditions with unpredictable outcomes may need to be constantly monitored for timely assistance and safety” (Perlman, see at least Paragraph 2).
Claim 3:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar may or may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Perlman as shown does:
comprising a nurse station (see at least Paragraph 16, (e.g. nurse) receiving station).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Rajasekhar with Perlman for at least the same reasons given for claim 2.
Claim 5:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
comprising an agnostic aggregation station (see at least Paragraph 69, The collection of patient data (as well as during subsequent treatment of patient data, through transmission, analysis, etc.) may be performed in a HIPAA-compliant manner. For example, the remote patient monitoring platform may be designed with no “conduit exception”, such that storage of patient data is performed on one or more HIPAA-complaint servers, and any third party vendor having access to patient data (e.g., providing launch of phone calls, programmable voice services, voice-to-text transcription, etc.) has executed a suitable agreement (e.g., Business Associate Agreement) to operate in a HIPAA-compliant manner. Furthermore, in some variations (as further described below), some or all patient data may be de-identified to further ensure patient privacy. For example, in these variations, the de-identification may provide an additional layer of security in combination with HIPAA-compliant practices described herein, and/or a layer of security to prevent other third parties (e.g., those who do not sign suitable Business Associate Agreements) from having access to identifiable patient data).
Claim 6:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
comprising a patient datastore, a facility datastore, a caregiver datastore, a device datastore, a patient state datastore, a patient management datastore, a facility management datastore, a caregiver management datastore, an electronic health record (HER) system datastore, a health/fitness datastore, and an agnostic aggregation datastore (see at least Paragraph 45, may be used by a suitable medical care provider (e.g., pulmonologist, other physician or nurse practitioner, other medical practitioner, suitable administrator associated with a medical practitioner, clinical staff or other auxiliary staff member or personnel, physician, or other qualified healthcare professional, etc.); Paragraph 46, and/or any suitable patient information may be entered in the system and added to a patient file or account. This information may, for example, by provided through a web portal or the like and stored on a suitable server system; Paragraph 57, public and/or proprietary private databases; Paragraph 69, The dictated or otherwise entered patient data may be recorded (170), such as part of a raw data file stored in one or memory devices (e.g., a server) … storage of patient data is performed on one or more HIPAA-complaint servers, and any third party vendor having access to patient data. Furthermore, in some variations (as further described below), some or all patient data may be de-identified to further ensure patient privacy. For example, in these variations, the de-identification may provide an additional layer of security in combination with HIPAA-compliant practices described herein, and/or a layer of security to prevent other third parties; Paragraph 232; Paragraph 233, FIG. 16 illustrates another exemplary GUI 1600 through a web portal for a medical care provider to view a confirmation of changes made to a medical treatment plan. The system may automatically update the patient's electronic medical record accordingly).
Claim 9:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the patient mobility device is implemented as a network connected device with a screen and a battery (see at least Paragraph 47; Paragraph 77, patient data may be transmitted over a remote communication link (e.g., over a wireless network) from one or more devices; Paragraph 107, may include one or more screens; Paragraph 149, mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, or other suitable handheld computing device; Paragraph 150).
Claim 10:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the patient mobility device includes a bedside tablet computer paired with the patient wearable sensor device (see at least Paragraph 77, patient data may be transmitted over a remote communication link (e.g., over a wireless network) from one or more devices; Paragraph 99, system may include a wearable measurement device including one or more sensors for measuring one or more bodily metrics of the patient; Paragraph 100, The one or more sensors may include, for example, a pulse oximeter configured to measure oxygen saturation and/or heart rate (and/or other cardiac characteristics) of the patient, though other sensors may additionally or alternatively be included in the measurement device; Paragraph 102, In other similar variations, the housing may include a cuff (e.g., blood pressure cuff), wristband, garment, and the like; Paragraph 149, Exemplary user computing devices include a mobile phone, tablet, personal computer, or other suitable handheld computing device).
Claim 12:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
wherein when the devices docking station is recharging the patient wearable sensor device the patient wearable sensor device is in an undeployed mode (see at least Paragraph 21, In some variations, the measurement device may be a wearable device (e.g., pendant, patch, cuff, etc.) … the docking station may include a power supply to recharge a power source of the measurement device; Paragraph 22; Paragraph 99, system may include a wearable measurement device including one or more sensors for measuring one or more bodily metrics of the patient; Paragraph 100, The one or more sensors may include, for example, a pulse oximeter configured to measure oxygen saturation and/or heart rate (and/or other cardiac characteristics) of the patient, though other sensors may additionally or alternatively be included in the measurement device; Paragraph 154, recharge the measurement device while not being worn by the sleeping patient; Paragraph 155, A power supply 760 in the docking station may be configured to recharge a power source of the measurement device when the measurement device is docked in the docking station (i.e. undeployed mode)).
Claim 13:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in operation, the patient wearable sensor device collects raw patient position data and transmits at least a subset of the raw patient position data to the patient mobility device using an RF transceiver and secure communications (see at least Paragraph 99, system may include a wearable measurement device including one or more sensors for measuring one or more bodily metrics of the patient; Paragraph 100, The one or more sensors may include, for example, a pulse oximeter configured to measure oxygen saturation and/or heart rate (and/or other cardiac characteristics) of the patient, though other sensors may additionally or alternatively be included in the measurement device; see at least Paragraph 145, Alternatively, when the sensor is turned on and joins the wireless mesh network, it may be assigned a unique network address by the back-end server (or other device on the network), by which it is subsequently addressed. Alternatively, the patient sensor can randomly select a unique identifying number after it powers-up. The unique serial number can be provided to users, such that the unique device serial number can be linked to a patient, bed, or other patient identifier. In some implementations, the link between the unique device serial number and the patient can be made automatically. In a preferable approach for automatically linking this information, the physical location of the sensor is automatically determined (i.e. the system can determine what bed the sensor is being used on through signal strength analysis, triangulation, and other means)).
Claim 14:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar may or may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Perlman as shown does:
comprising a patient datastore, wherein the patient mobility device provides patient position data to the patient datastore (Perlman, see at least Paragraph 5, a monitoring system comprises several components: a sensor, a monitor, and an output device. The sensor is adapted to be carried by a patient and outputs spatial information associated with the patient's physical orientation. The monitor is in operative communication with the sensor to receive the spatial information together with temporal information; Paragraph 26, The information that the follower storage device 29 may store includes the patient's orientation, the duration of the patient's current orientation, the current time, an indication of a necessary change in orientation, the patient's change in orientation, the magnitude of the change in orientation, the frequency the number of orientation changes that have occurred, the frequency of orientation changes, the date and time of any given orientation change; Paragraph 73, The sensor continuously sends patient position to the bedside computer. Preferably, the bedside computer includes an easily viewable keyboard).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Rajasekhar with Perlman for at least the same reasons given for claim 2.
Claim 15:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
wherein, in operation, the devices docking station is assigned to the patient (see at least Paragraph 154, The docking station may be suited, for example, for bedside placement or similar location, where the docking station may be configured to record nocturnal data (e.g., nocturnal cough) while the patient is sleeping, recharge the measurement device while not being worn by the sleeping patient, be in a convenient location for providing an audible, visual, or tactile alarm notification as a reminder for the patient to perform an assessment (e.g., upon waking up), etc.).
Claim 16:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
comprising a wearable mount applied to the patient, wherein the patient wearable sensor device is affixed to the patient via the wearable mount (see at least Paragraph 99, system may include a wearable measurement device including one or more sensors for measuring one or more bodily metrics of the patient; Paragraph 100, The one or more sensors may include, for example, a pulse oximeter configured to measure oxygen saturation and/or heart rate (and/or other cardiac characteristics) of the patient, though other sensors may additionally or alternatively be included in the measurement device; Paragraph 102, In other similar variations, the housing may include a cuff (e.g., blood pressure cuff), wristband, garment, and the like).
Claim 17:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the device docking station includes a base, a network connected device bracket connected to the base, a network connected device, a screen bezel connected to the base, and a hinge connecting the network connected device bracket to the screen bezel (see at least Fig. 7; Paragraph 21, in some variations, the docking station may include a power supply to recharge a power source of the measurement device; Paragraph 154; Paragraph 155, A power supply 760 in the docking station may be configured to recharge a power source of the measurement device when the measurement device is docked in the docking station; Paragraph 158, etc. for hanging on a bedpost and/or attaching to a wall surface).
Claim 18:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the device docking station includes a wall charger bracket connected to a base, a wall charger connected to the wall charger bracket, a charging cable connected to the wall charger, a wearable device cable connected to the wall charger, a wearable device charger connected to the wearable device cable, a wearable device charger mount cap connected to the wearable device charger, a wearable patient devices compartment door, and an operational connector connected to the base (see at least Paragraph 21, in some variations, the docking station may include a power supply to recharge a power source of the measurement device; Paragraph 155, A power supply 760 in the docking station may be configured to recharge a power source of the measurement device when the measurement device is docked in the docking station; Paragraph 158, etc. for hanging on a bedpost and/or attaching to a wall surface).
Claim 19:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar further discloses the following limitations:
comprising a wearable patient device mount that includes an adhesive backing and a wearable device mounting frame (see at least Paragraph 99, system may include a wearable measurement device including one or more sensors for measuring one or more bodily metrics of the patient; Paragraph 100, The one or more sensors may include, for example, a pulse oximeter configured to measure oxygen saturation and/or heart rate (and/or other cardiac characteristics) of the patient, though other sensors may additionally or alternatively be included in the measurement device; Paragraph 102, In other similar variations, the housing may include a cuff (e.g., blood pressure cuff), wristband, garment, and the like).
Claims 4 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekhar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2020/0135334 A1 in view of Perlman, U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2016/0302698 A1 and further in view of Tessmer et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2019/0083337 A1.
Claim 4:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar may or may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Tessmer as shown does:
comprising a lift tracker station (see at least Abstract, A bed detection system monitors data associated with the patient support apparatus and communicates with a remote station. A controller interrupts communication of the bed detection system with the remote station, drives the articulation system to move the sections; Paragraph 35, The patient support apparatus 30 further comprises a lift mechanism, generally indicated at 72, which operates to lift and lower the intermediate frame 36 relative to the base 34 which, in turn, moves the patient support deck 38 relative to the base 34 between a plurality of lift configurations, including a raised lift configuration 72A where the patient support deck 38 is elevated vertically above the base 34 (see FIGS. 3-4), a lowered lift configuration 72B where the patient support deck 38 is positioned adjacent to the base 34 (see FIGS. 5-6), or any desired vertical position therebetween).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Rajasekhar and Perlman with Tessmer with the motivation of providing benefit of “…. contributing to improved patient mobility, safety, and ambulation” (Tessmer, see at least Paragraph 7).
Claim 20:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar may or may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Tessmer as shown does:
wherein, in operation, the patient mobility device generates the alert to notify a lift technician to take action to change patient orientation (see at least Paragraph 51, if the patient attempts to exit the patient support apparatus 30 while the bed exit alarm system 114 of the bed detection system 108 is armed, the controller 86 communicates bed exit data DE to the remote monitoring station 110 to alert the caregiver. For example, the remote monitoring station 110 could respond to the bed exit data DE by sounding an alarm, sending a message to one or more caregivers, and the like. Similarly, the bed exit alarm system 114 could also be employed to activate other alarms, such as visual, audible, and/or tactile alarms coupled to the patient support apparatus 30, the remote monitoring station 110, a mobile device such as a tablet computer, and the like).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Rajasekhar and Perlman with Tessmer for at least the same reasons given for claim 4.
Claims 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajasekhar et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2020/0135334 A1 in view of Perlman, U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2016/0302698 A1 and further in view of Shen et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2019/0374133 A1.
Claim 7:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar may or may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Shen as shown does:
wherein the patient wearable sensor device is a short-range device (SRD) that includes a three-axis accelerometer, an orientation sensor, a datastore of detected stimuli, and a radio frequency (RF) transceiver (see at least Abstract, A system for monitoring a person may include a person-worn sensor device including at least one sensor (e.g., at least one accelerometer, magnetometer, altimeter, etc.) configured to collect sensor data and a processor to process data from the person-worn sensor device; Paragraphs 15-17, person-worn sensor device comprises the accelerometer and at least one of a magnetometer or an altimeter; Paragraph 21-23, monitoring a reference orientation of the person over time based on sensor data collected by the person-worn sensor device; Paragraph 36, the sensor includes a multi-axis accelerometer; Paragraph 37, the sensor comprises in part a three-axis accelerometer; Paragraph 40, The magnetometer permits determination of the direction a patient is facing, particularly when sitting up. A sudden change in magnetometer reading can indicate a patient attempting a bed exit; Paragraph 91).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Rajasekhar and Perlman with Shen with the motivation to “… enable more efficient and effective patient care” and “… historical patient data is used in connection with the algorithms processed in a processing unit to make recommendations to a caregiver, or, in the case of automated care systems, to enable the effectuation of the automated care” (see at least Paragraphs 12 and 38).
Claim 8:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar may or may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Shen as shown does:
wherein the patient mobility device is configured upon startup using a technique that involves scanning a QR code to request a unique certificate that allows the patient mobility device to be trusted within a facility (see at least Paragraph 145, Alternatively, when the sensor is turned on and joins the wireless mesh network, it may be assigned a unique network address by the back-end server (or other device on the network), by which it is subsequently addressed. Alternatively, the patient sensor can randomly select a unique identifying number after it powers-up. The unique serial number can be provided to users, such that the unique device serial number can be linked to a patient, bed, or other patient identifier. In some implementations, the link between the unique device serial number and the patient can be made automatically. In a preferable approach for automatically linking this information, the physical location of the sensor is automatically determined (i.e. the system can determine what bed the sensor is being used on through signal strength analysis, triangulation, and other means)).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Rajasekhar and Perlman with Shen for at least the same reasons given for claim 7.
Claim 11:
The combination of Rajasekhar/Perlman discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Rajasekhar may or may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Shen as shown does:
comprising a mesh network that includes the patient mobility device and wherein the patient mobility device communicates with a plurality of devices including the patient wearable sensor device and a nurse station (see at least Abstract, A system for monitoring a person may include a person-worn sensor device including at least one sensor (e.g., at least one accelerometer, magnetometer, altimeter, etc.) configured to collect sensor data and a processor to process data from the person-worn sensor device; Paragraph 36, the sensor includes a multi-axis accelerometer; Paragraph 39, some embodiments employ a mesh network for monitoring of various patient activities including patient orientation, location …; Paragraph 88, nursing station; Paragraph 99, system may include a wearable measurement device including one or more sensors for measuring one or more bodily metrics of the patient; Paragraph 100, The one or more sensors may include, for example, a pulse oximeter configured to measure oxygen saturation and/or heart rate (and/or other cardiac characteristics) of the patient, though other sensors may additionally or alternatively be included in the measurement device).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Rajasekhar and Perlman with Shen for at least the same reasons given for claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 571.272.8109. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Joy Chng/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights