KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 11, 2022

2021000771 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2022)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www.uspto.gov APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 15/534,745 06/09/2017 Brian Rosenfeld 2014P01432WOUS 2204 24737 7590 03/11/2022 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 1600 Summer Street 5th Floor Stamford, CT 06905 EXAMINER LAU, KEVIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2683 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/11/2022 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): marianne.fox@philips.com patti.demichele@Philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN ROSENFELD and STEVE PARK Appeal 2021-000771 Application 15/534,745 Technology Center 2600 Before ADAM J. PYONIN, AMBER L. HAGY, and DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Herein, “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Philips Koninklijke N.V. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000771 Application 15/534,745 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “detect[ing] whether a subject is at risk of falling from a support structure, in real or near real time, and to generate a potential fall alert,” in which the “support structure may be one or more of a bed, a stretcher, a table, a chair, shoes, and/or other support structures.” Spec. 4 (item numbering omitted). Claims 1-15 are pending; claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent. Appeal Br. 24-32. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphases added): 1. A system that generates a potential fall alert for a subject in a support structure, the system comprising: one or more body position sensors that generate output signals conveying information related to a position of one or more body parts of the subject; one or more physiological sensors that generate output signals conveying physiological information related to the subject; and one or more physical computer processors comprising computer-readable instructions to: obtain first and second sets of fall criteria prior to the subject falling that describe whether the subject is likely to fall, the first set of fall criteria indicative of a low level of risk of the subject falling and the second set of fall criteria indicative of a high level of risk of the subject falling, each of the first and second sets of fall criteria comprising one or more individual criteria that is weighted more heavily or lightly than other individual criteria; determine one or more body position parameters, and one or more physiological parameters based on the output signals generated by the one or more body position sensors, and the one or more physiological sensors; compare the determined one or more physiological parameters, and the one or more body position parameters to criteria in the first and second sets of fall criteria; Appeal 2021-000771 Application 15/534,745 3 responsive to the one or more body position parameters, and the one or more physiological parameters satisfying the criteria in the first set of fall criteria, generate a first alert corresponding with the low level of risk of the subject falling; responsive to the one or more body position parameters, and the one or more physiological parameters satisfying the criteria in the second set of fall criteria, generate a second alert corresponding with the high level of risk of the subject falling, wherein the second alert is different than the first alert; and, send a status alert indicative of satisfying the first set of fall criteria or the second set of fall criteria at predetermined time intervals. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers (US 2009/0119843 A1; May 14, 2009), Osorio (US 2017/0172465 A1; June 22, 2017), Hanson (US 2012/0314901 A1; Dec. 13, 2012), and Prior (PG Pub 2009/0121863 A1; May 14, 2009). Final Act. 2. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant does not separately argue the claims. See Appeal Br. 22. We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv). We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner erred and adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appeal 2021-000771 Application 15/534,745 4 Low and High Risk Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 is in error: Rodgers in view of Osorio fails to disclose sending alerts (i.e., a first alert or a second alert) corresponding to satisfaction of a first set of fall criteria or a second set of fall criteria indicative of a low level of risk of the subject falling and a high risk of the subject falling, respectively. Appeal Br. 16. Particularly, Appellant contends, although “Osorio discloses predicting and detecting falls,” that “Osorio is entirely silent as to upgrading and downgrading warnings based on the likelihood that the subject will fall, rather, Osorio, quite clearly, provides for upgrading and downgrading warnings based on the value of the force of impact of the fall.” Id. at 18. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Both Rodgers and Osorio, as cited by the Examiner, disclose determining the likelihood that a subject will fall, and issuing warnings based on the determination. See Rodgers ¶ 53 (“detecting a position and/or movement of a patient that is predictive of support exiting”), ¶ 61 (“sends alerts”); Osorio ¶ 87 (“determine that a fall is likely or imminent based on a fall detection algorithm”), ¶ 89 (“issue warnings related to falls”); Final Act. 3, 9. The Examiner further cites Osorio for teaching the “[w]arnings may be upgraded or downgraded.” Osorio ¶¶ 87, 89; Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill would “use Osorio’s first and second criteria/alarms in Rodger’s system to improve the system with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that provides multiple alerts to indicate the severity of the alert.” Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 3. Appeal 2021-000771 Application 15/534,745 5 We find the Examiner’s determination to be supported by the cited teachings and by a reasoned analysis with rational underpinning. An obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also Id. at 418 (“The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”). Although Osorio teaches upgrading warnings based on the force of the impact (see Osorio ¶ 89), we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to issue different alerts based on the level of risk of the subject falling, in light of the combined teachings of the cited references (see Final Act. 4). In contrast, Appellant challenges Osorio’s teachings individually without showing error in the Examiner’s obviousness reasoning. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 18. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding one of ordinary skill would have combined the teachings of the references in the manner claimed. Predetermined Time Intervals In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Prior for teaching the sending of alerts at predetermined time intervals, as claimed: Rodgers in view of Osorio and in further view of Hanson does not explicitly disclose send a status alert indicative of satisfying the first set or fall criteria or the second set of fall criteria at predetermined time intervals. Prior discloses send a status alert indicative of satisfying the first set of fall criteria or the second set of fall criteria at Appeal 2021-000771 Application 15/534,745 6 predetermined time intervals (¶24, 27: alert signal is repeated at intervals). Final Act. 5. Appellant argues the Examiner errs, because “although the circuitry of [Prior’s] alert system is arguably configured to provide signals, the signals have no relation to a low or high risk of the person to fall.” Appeal Br. 20. According to Appellant, the Examiner has not established obviousness: Appellant respectfully asserts that it is not enough to cite to a system which sends alerts in the abstract. Instead, the Office must indicate why a person with ordinary skill in the art would look to the system of Prior, i.e., a system which utilizes sensor data to determine whether a person has not moved for a predetermined period of time when arriving at the invention claimed. Appellant respectfully asserts that, should the system of Prior be utilized to, e.g., detect whether a person is about to fall, Prior would be ineffective, as the system of Prior sends signals long after a person has fallen. Appeal Br. 21. We are not persuaded the Examiner’s combination is in error. Here, the Examiner finds one of ordinary skill would “use Prior’s repeating alert signal in Rodger’s in view of Osorio and in further view of Hanson’s system to ensure that an operator or caregiver can still get the alert it the signal was missed or not received in the initial transmission.” Final Act. 6; Prior ¶ 27 (“The alert signal is repeated at intervals.”). We find the Examiner’s analysis to be reasonable and supported by a rational underpinning. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 420 (“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.”). Appeal 2021-000771 Application 15/534,745 7 Appellant’s argument relies on the bodily incorporation of Prior’s post-fall alerting (see Appeal Br. 20), whereas we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have used Prior’s medical alert time intervals in the pre-fall alert of the Examiner’s combination (see Final Act. 6). See Prior ¶ 24 (describing “a signal indicative of motion of the individual where an absence of signal indicates a potential need for medical assistance”). “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)); see also Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“Neither is the practitioner in reading the . . . patent disclosure compelled to adopt every single aspect of its teaching without the exercise of independent judgment.”). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the limitations of claim 1 to be obvious in view of the combination of cited references. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-15 103 Rodgers, Osorio, Hanson, Prior 1-15 Appeal 2021-000771 Application 15/534,745 8 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED