DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 4/21/25. Claims 1-2, 4-6, 19-20, 24-25, 37-42, and 52 are pending. Claims 19-20, 24, and 25 are rejected.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the amended claim language recites “the controller adapted perform the following: “. Examiner suggests --- the controller adapted to perform the following: ---.
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 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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2018/0369035 to Bhimavarapu et al. (“Bhimavarapu”), in view of US Patent 10,665,204 to Goodsitt et al. (“Goodsitt”).
Claim 19. A patient support apparatus comprising: a frame; a support surface supported by the frame and adapted to support a patient thereon (Bhimavarapu, Fig. 1); a display (Bhimavarapu, Fig. 1, #102) adapted to display information at multiple brightness levels; an ambient light sensor (Bhimavarapu, #124; paragraph [0094]) adapted to detect ambient light levels adjacent the display; and a controller in communication with the display and the ambient light sensor, the controller adapted to receive ambient light level readings from the ambient light sensor; to use the ambient light level readings to automatically select a particular brightness level for the display; to cause the display to display the information at the particular brightness level (Bhimavarapu paragraph [0094] discloses using the ambient light measurement to select a first or second illumination level); to override the particular brightness level in response to a triggering condition, wherein the controller automatically illuminates the display at a preset brightness level in response to the triggering condition; wherein the triggering condition is not based on the ambient light readings (the apparatus of Bhimavarapu discloses a triggering condition in paragraphs [0070]-[0071] in which the “the controller 84 increases the “brightness” of the screen 102 as the patient support deck 38 moves closer to the base”; alternatively, Figs. 4A-4B disclose an embodiment in which touching the screen triggers a change in backlight illumination level) and is at least one of the following: movement of the patient support apparatus from one location to another, or a particular time of day (Bhimavarapu does not teach the triggering event for changing brightness being the location of the apparatus, or the particular time of day, however, such functionality is known in the prior art of display screens, as taught by Goodsitt in Fig. 2 and column4 line 20 through column 5, line 12; lines 10-12 explicitly teach changing the brightness based on a predetermined location or a time of day, which reads on Applicant’s amended claim language; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Bhimavarapu with the brightness adaptability of Goodsitt for the predictable benefit of assisting a user in being able to see and read the screen, and additionally, because doing so would have simply been the use of a known technique with a known device to yield predictable and obvious results).
Claims 20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2018/0369035 to Bhimavarapu et al. (“Bhimavarapu”) and US Patent 10,665,204 to Goodsitt et al. (“Goodsitt”), in view of US Patent 9,038,217 to Elliot et al. (“Elliot”).
Claim 20. The patient support apparatus of claim 19 further comprising: a set of controls spaced away from the display (Bhimavarapu discloses a bed with a user control interface, but does not teach “controls spaced away from the display”; however Elliot teaches a similar bed apparatus and provides additional detail regarding the user interface in Fig. 2, with controls spaced away from the display at #’s 36a-g and 40a-e; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the bed of Bhimavarapu with the user interface of Elliot as an obvious matter of design choice to provide a more user intuitive user interface system) and configured to be illuminated at multiple brightness levels; and a second ambient light sensor associated with the set of controls, the second ambient light sensor adapted to generate a separate ambient light level reading indicative of a level of ambient illumination adjacent the set of controls; wherein the controller is further adapted to automatically select a specific brightness level for the set of controls based on the separate ambient light level reading and to cause the set of controls to be illuminated at the specific brightness level, wherein the specific brightness level is independent of the particular brightness level (Bhimavarapu discloses in paragraph [0094] that the light sensor can be spaced from the input device and can be placed in any suitable location, and also discloses in paragraph [0093] that the controller illuminates one of various light modules; therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple light sensors for various different lighting modules of the apparatus).
Claim 24. The patient support apparatus of claim19 further comprising a manual brightness control adapted to be activated and deactivated by a user, wherein the controller is further adapted to cause the display to display the information at a user- defined brightness level when the manual brightness control is activated and to display the information at the particular brightness level when the manual brightness control is not activated (Bhimavarapu does not teach a manual brightness level, however this feature is taught by Elliot in fig. 48; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Bhimavarapu with the manual brightness feature in order to allow a user to customize the level of brightness as desired).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2018/0369035 to Bhimavarapu et al. (“Bhimavarapu”), US Patent 10,665,204 to Goodsitt et al. (“Goodsitt”), and US Patent 9,038,217 to Elliot et al. (“Elliot”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0314985 to Degris et al. (“Degris”).
Claim 25. The patient support apparatus of claim 24 wherein the controller is further adapted to store in a memory the user-defined brightness levels and a plurality of concomitant ambient light level readings taken when the manual brightness control has been activated, the controller further adapted to use the stored plurality of concomitant ambient light level readings and the stored user-defined brightness levels in a machine learning algorithm, and to use the machine learning algorithm to define a future particular brightness level for the display for future use when the user has not activated the manual brightness control (Bhimavarapu does not disclose the use of a machine learning algorithm to determine future brightness levels, however, Degris paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and Fig. 2 teach using machine learning to provide future illumination levels for a display; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide this machine learning feature to the apparatus of Bhimavarapu since doing so would have simply been combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable and obvious results, and doing so would have provided a user’s customized brightness level that allows for easier viewing of the display screen).
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Applicant’s invention of claims 1 and 37 includes, inter alia, a compensation factor for ultraviolet and infrared light to determine the brightness of a display screen. The aggregate of the claimed limitations are not found in the prior art of record, and there is no obvious motivation to modify the prior art to provide this feature. Applicant’s disclosure discusses this feature in paragraph [0127]. While Applicant’s compensation factor functionality is similar to a machine learning process (as taught by Degris for example), the algorithm is not implemented in the same manner, and the specific details of the claim limitation are differentiated from the prior art.
Response to Applicant's remarks and amendments
With respect to independent claim 19, Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of Applicant’s remarks that in the cited art of Bhimavarapu does not teach amended claim language directed toward the triggering condition includes at least one of the following: movement of the patient support apparatus from one location to another, or a particular time of day. This feature is taught by Goodsitt et al., and a new rejection entered herein, in view of Goodsitt, as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached on 571-272-8525. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673