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 .
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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 37-43 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- and 14 of U.S. Patent No. US 12408763 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims overlap in scope.
Instant application
U.S. Patent No. US 12408763 B2
37
1
38
1+13
39
5
40
6
41
7
42
8
43
14
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 15-20 and 30-36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) data processing including gather and outputting using generic computer elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the combination of additional elements fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, given that the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, such that the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer (data gathering or outputting). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of remote control, bed controller and screen when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception, given that the additional limitations only store and retrieve information in memory, explain that these are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Re claim 15. a method of operating a bed system having a remote control (data processing), the method comprising:
fetching, by the remote control, a state of a bed from a bed controller that is physically separate from the remote control; and (data gathering)
displaying an interface on a screen of the remote control responsive to the fetched state. (data outputting)
16. The method of claim 15, further comprising:
waking the remote control responsive to receiving a signal from a capacitive surface of the remote control, the signal being indicative of a touch by a user. (data gathering and processing)
17. The method of claim 15, wherein fetching comprises wirelessly communicating between the remote control and the bed controller. (data gathering)
18. The method of claim 15, wherein receiving a response comprises the remote control receiving an indication of a new state, and displaying an interface comprises displaying an interface appropriate for the new state. (data processing including outputting)
19. The method of claim 16 wherein upon waking the remote control, receiving a response comprises the remote control receiving an indication of no change in state since a previous fetch, and wherein displaying an interface comprises displaying a last used interface. (data processing and outputting)
20. (Original) The method of claim 15, further comprising:
transmitting, by the remote control, a command signal to the bed to change the state of the bed from the state to a new state; (data processing)
receiving, by the bed controller, the command signal to change the state of the bed from the state to the new state; (data gathering)
adjusting, by the bed controller, the state of the bed based on the command signal; (data processing)
transmitting, by the bed controller, a signal representing the new state to the remote control; (data processing and outputting)
receiving, by the remote control, the signal representing the new state of the bed; and (data gathering)
displaying, by the remote control, the new state of the bed on the screen of the remote control. (data outputting)
30. The method of claim 16, wherein waking the remote control responsive to receiving the signal from the capacitive surface of the remote control, the signal being indicative of the touch by the user comprises receiving the signal from the capacitive surface of the remote control from a portion of the remote control that is capacitively sensitive. (data gathering and outputting)
31. The method of claim 16, wherein waking the remote control responsive to receiving the signal from the capacitive surface of the remote control comprises receiving the signal from the capacitive surface separate from at least one capacitive button of the remote control, separate from the screen, and separate from a first input area of the remote control. (data gathering and outputting)
32. The method of claim 31, wherein waking the remote control responsive to receiving the signal from the capacitive surface of the remote control comprises receiving the signal from between the at least one capacitive button between the screen and the first input area. (data gathering and outputting)
33. The method of claim 16, further comprising:
pinging the bed controller upon waking; (data processing)
receiving a state from the bed controller responsive to the pinging; and (data gathering)
displaying an interface on the screen responsive to the received state. (data outputting)
34. The method of claim 16, further comprising responsive to toggling of a slider switch of the remote control between a first position and a second position, adjusting an interface displayed on the screen to control a first side of a bed when the slider switch is in the first position and control a second side of the bed when the slider switch is in the second position. (data gathering and outputting)
35. The method of claim 16, further comprising responsive to receiving ambient light at a light sensor of the remote control, producing a light signal representative of an ambient light level. (data gathering and outputting)
36. The method of claim 35, further comprising adjusting a brightness of the screen and an input area of the remote control responsive to the light signal. (data gathering and outputting)
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by COLLIN, JR. et al. (US 20070210917 A1).
Re claim 15. COLLINS, JR. discloses (abstract) a method of operating a bed system having a remote control [0088], the method comprising:
fetching, by the remote control 38, a state of a bed 22 from a bed controller that is physically separate from the remote control; and
displaying an interface on a screen 222 of the remote control responsive to the fetched state. [0088]
[0088] FIG. 10 is a screen shot of a "Bed Alerts" template screen 222, which is another example of a Care Alert template (see the Care Alert template examples and discussion in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/189,781 which is already incorporated by reference herein), that appears on a display screen of computer 38 to enable a caregiver to select various alert conditions for an associated bed 22 to which one or more assigned. Screen 222 has configurable alert conditions associated with the bed status data received by computer 38 from the associated bed 22. Screen 222 has various check boxes and radio buttons that are selected in screen 222 to configure system 112 with the associated alert conditions. Screen also has various text boxes in which data is typed.
17. COLLINS, JR. discloses (FIG.1) the method of claim 15, wherein fetching comprises wirelessly communicating between the remote control and the bed controller.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COLLIN, JR. et al. (US 20070210917 A1) in view of FLEURY et al. (US 20150026896 A1).
However, COLLIN, JR. fails to explicitly disclose:
18. the method of claim 15, wherein receiving a response comprises the remote control receiving an indication of a new state, and displaying an interface comprises displaying an interface appropriate for the new state.
FLEURY teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention [0037] a process of receiving a response of new state indication, user’s button depressions for adjustments, and displaying on interface the adjustment change.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try receiving and displaying an indication of new state in order to provide proper remote operation of a bed.
However, COLLIN, JR. fails to explicitly disclose:
20. the method of claim 15, further comprising:
transmitting, by the remote control, a command signal to the bed to change the state of the bed from the state to a new state;
receiving, by the bed controller, the command signal to change the state of the bed from the state to the new state;
adjusting, by the bed controller, the state of the bed based on the command signal;
transmitting, by the bed controller, a signal representing the new state to the remote control;
receiving, by the remote control, the signal representing the new state of the bed; and
displaying, by the remote control, the new state of the bed on the screen of the remote control.
FLEURY teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention [0037] a process of receiving a response of new state indication, user’s button depressions for adjustments, and displaying on interface the adjustment change. Furthermore, adjustment signal is transmitted to a control box 24 from remote control 300 an instruction for adjustment selected by a user.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try processing adjustment command signals from a user in order to provide operation of bed as desired by a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 7/13/2026
Prosecution Insights