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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 63/031,975, filed on May 29th, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 22nd, 2022 is being considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
In the response dated 1/29/2026, Applicant amended claims 26. Claims 1-8, 26-34, 44-53, and 57-58 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s arguments, Examiner will respond to them in the order they were presented.
Regarding page 11, Applicant’s filing of a Terminal Disclaimer and request for reconsideration have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Double Patenting rejection regarding claims 1 and 2 are withdrawn. Claims 1 and 2 contain a new rejection in light of the existing prior art.
Regarding page 11 and 12, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 26 and the dependent claims have been fully considered but are moot in view of the amended claim language.
Regarding page 12 and 13, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection as being unpatentable over Hayes (US20160367415) when considered in light of Durlach (Pat. 11402287). However, upon further search and consideration, independent claim 44 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Huster (US20150033295). Additional dependent claims also remain rejected in view of the applied prior art.
35 USC § 101 Analysis
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.
The analysis below determines the claims recite eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or article of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 states:
A caregiver assistance system for assisting a caregiver in caring for patients, the caregiver assistance system comprising:
a plurality of patient support apparatuses, each of the patient support apparatuses comprising:
a litter frame;
a support deck supported on the litter frame and configured to support a patient thereon;
a memory containing a unique identifier uniquely identifying the respective patient support apparatus;
a transceiver;
and a controller in communication with the memory and the transceiver, the controller adapted to transmit the unique identifier off the respective patient support apparatus;
and (b) a caregiver assistance application adapted to be executed on a server, the caregiver assistance application adapted to perform the following:
(i) communicate with a mobile electronic device comprising a display, a camera, and a user input;
(ii) receive from the mobile electronic device a digital image of a particular patient's skin captured by the camera;
(iii) identify a particular patient support apparatus to which the particular patient is assigned utilizing correlation data associating the digital image with the particular patient support apparatus thereby associating the image of the patient's skin with the patient without requiring the caregiver to identify the patient; and
(iv) send a message to an electronic medical records server in communication with the server, the message including the digital image and a patient identifier uniquely identifying the particular patient.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes organizing human activity because each bolded component can practically be performed by the human mind or with pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer and/or hardware terms like “a litter frame; a support deck supported on the litter frame and configured to support a patient thereon; a memory containing a unique identifier uniquely identifying the respective patient support apparatus; a transceiver; and a controller in communication with the memory and the transceiver, the controller adapted to transmit the unique identifier off the respective patient support apparatus;”, nothing in the claims precludes the bold-font portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “adapted to be executed on a server” language, “identify a particular patient support apparatus to which the particular patient is assigned utilizing correlation data associating the digital image with the particular patient support apparatus” in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the healthcare provider recognizing a specific bed that a patient uses for a stay in an image. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 26 incorporates a service request into their claim but still performs the same steps as claim 1 of communicating to a mobile device, receiving data, identifying data, correlating data, and then sending a message. This claim falls under the same category of an abstract idea and follows the same rationale as claim 1.
Independent claim 44 also performs the same steps as claim 1 of collecting data, selecting the data, providing an image guide, capturing an image, and then processing the data. This claim falls under the same category of an abstract idea and follows the same rationale as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-8, 28, 29-34, 45-53, 57, and 58 add extra-solution activity to their parent claims which will be further inspected in the following steps for a practical application to their abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-8, 28, 29-34, 45-53, and 57-58 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2, reciting particular aspects of how “receive the correlation data from the particular patient support apparatus” may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception of “Mental Processes” or “Organizing Human Activity” is integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1's system recites a particular machine that amount to more than a generalized computer. For instance, the patient support apparatuses comprises a litter frame, a support deck, a memory, a controller, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a mobile electronic device, a camera, and a display. Independent claims 26 and 44's system also includes a transceiver in the particular machine without adding additional ineligible subject matter and therefore follows the same rationale as claim 1.
The dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further limits their independent claims material without adding ineligible subject matter and, therefore, follows the same rationale as claim 1. Therefore, the claims recite statutory subject matter.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (US20160367415) in view of Baker (US20170303844).
Regarding claim 1, Hayes teaches.
A caregiver assistance system for assisting a caregiver in caring for patients, the caregiver assistance system comprising: ([0135] “FIG. 10 illustrates in greater detail one embodiment of a patient support apparatus system 150 that may be utilized in a healthcare facility”)
(a) a plurality of patient support apparatuses, each of the patient support apparatuses comprising: ([0135] “Patient support apparatus system 150 includes a plurality of patient support apparatuses”)
a litter frame: ([Fig 1] a frame (28))
a support deck supported on the litter frame and configured to support a patient thereon: ([Fig 1] (30); see also [0056] “Patient support apparatus 20 of FIG. 1 includes a base 22 having a plurality of wheels 24, a pair of lifts 26 supported on the base, a frame or litter 28 supported by the lifts 26, and a deck 30 that is supported on top of litter 28.”)
a memory containing a unique identifier uniquely identifying the respective support apparatus: ([0104] “FIG. 5 shows in greater detail one illustrative embodiment of object/landmark detection system 80. Object/landmark detection system 80 includes one or more image sensors 91, a processor 92, a ranging subsystem 78, and a memory 94. “)
a transceiver: ([0063] “In some embodiments, off-board communication module 56 is a WiFi transceiver that is adapted to communicate using the WiFi protocol (e.g. any of the IEEE 802.11 standards) with one or more wireless access points of the healthcare facility's computer network.”)
and a controller in communication with the memory and the transceiver, ([0064] “Controller 58 (FIG. 2) is in communication with off-board communication module 56, navigation system 60, user interface 44, and exit detection system 62. Controller 58 processes the data received from each of these components and forwards, as appropriate, commands to one or more of the other components based upon the received data. In general, controller 58 oversees the operation of components 56, 60, 44, and 62, and coordinates communication between these components. “) the controller adapted to transmit the unique identifier off the respective patient support apparatus: ([0026] “The patient support apparatus includes a frame, wheels, a support surface, a navigation system, a wireless transceiver, and a control system adapted to transmit both data from the navigation system and a unique identifier corresponding to the patient support apparatus.”) and
(b) a caregiver assistance application adapted to be executed on a server, the caregiver assistance application adapted to ([0078] “Server application 74 determines the locations of each patient support apparatus 20 within the facility, updates those locations as the patient support apparatuses 20 move, and maintains a log of their locations over time.”)
perform the following: (i) communicate with a mobile electronic device comprising a display, a camera, and a user input; ([0077] “In some embodiments, healthcare staff software application 76 is installed on mobile electronic devices 64b as a cell phone app” where a cell phone has a display, camera, and user input)
Regarding claim 1, Hayes does not explicitly teach, as taught by Baker:
(ii) receive from the mobile electronic device a digital image of a particular patient's skin captured by the camera ([0003] “an imaging device for monitoring a skin feature includes a camera, at least one processor, … initiate an image sequence of the body area”; see also [0022] “device 102 is a handheld device, such as a smart phone”)
(iii) identify a particular patient support apparatus to which the particular patient is assigned utilizing correlation data associating the digital image with the particular patient support apparatus thereby associating the image of the patient's skin with the patient without requiring the caregiver to identify the patient; ([0049] “the skin feature monitoring engine 105… include[s] as part of the image as a part of the image's metadata … GPS location and the like. These standard metadata elements are stored as part of the image by the camera when an image is created… separate metadata may include the image path and filename. In another embodiment, having the image and the metadata in the same record of a database would provide the logical connection. In embodiments, the notes in the image may include patient name, patient ID, a unique identifier for the skin feature, body area, focal distance, date, time, patient date of birth, and/or other information” Where associated patient metadata of a location and other associated devices to an image comprises identifying an assigned patient support apparatus)
(iv) send a message to an electronic medical records server in communication with the server, the message including the digital image and a patient identifier uniquely identifying the particular patient ([0024-0025] “the skin feature monitoring engine 105 operates to, for example, guide the image capture of the patient's P skin, analyze the captured images, and present the images and analysis to the medical professional MP… providing documents to a clinician may be accomplished by sending the documents to an EMR/EHR, by e-mail, by upload to a server”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Baker, with a reasonable expectation of success, by incorporating the skin imaging diagnosis, location services, and messaging tool into the wireless access point devices for the patient support apparatuses. This would have allowed for healthcare professionals to seamlessly transfer diagnostic data from one network device to another. Baker is adaptable to Hayes as both inventions integrate data processing into the healthcare facility network of devices. Hayes would have been well aware of the sores that accrue in patient’s during transport and bed management, as solved in Baker. Additionally, Hayes would have found Baker’s teaching while searching for ergonomic solutions to patient bed transport, as Hayes teaches functional patient imaging for bed sores “Instead of awkwardly holding the camera, the user (the patient) uses a hand-held device such as a cellular phone to connect to the camera” [0037].
Regarding claim 2, Hayes- Baker as a combination recites all of the limitations of claim 1. Hayes also teaches:
wherein the caregiver assistance application is further adapted to receive the correlation data from the particular patient support apparatus. ([0022] “The control system communicates with the navigation system and the wireless transceiver, and transmits to the remote device movement information that indicates what route was followed by the patient support apparatus in moving from a first location to a second location.” Where the assistance system [i.e., the assistance application] transmitting location data to a navigation system [i.e. a patient support apparatus] that is associated with the patient is correlation data)
Regarding claim 5, Hayes-Baker teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Hayes also teaches:
wherein the caregiver assistance application is further adapted to receive the correlation data from the mobile electronic device. ([0078] “Server application 74 determines the locations of each patient support apparatus 20 within the facility, updates those locations as the patient support apparatuses 20 move, and maintains a log of their locations over time.” Where the patient support apparatus is the mobile device and the correlation data is the device’s location)
Regarding claim 58, Hayes-Baker as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Baker also teaches:
wherein the digital image received from the mobile electronic device by the caregiver assistance application does not include any patient identification information.” ([0027] “Database 112 may contain de-identified data such as image, encrypted electronic protected health information (ePHI), or coded patient data,” where the patient support apparatus transmits, to the application, personal identification data assigned to a particular patient support apparatus)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Baker, with a reasonable expectation of success, by deidentifying the skin imaging diagnosis and patient information for the patient support apparatuses. This would have allowed for healthcare professionals to securely transfer diagnostic data from one network device to another. Baker is adaptable to Hayes as both inventions integrate data processing into the healthcare facility network of devices. Hayes would have been well aware of the sores that accrue in patient’s during transport and bed management, as solved in Baker. Additionally, Hayes would have found Baker’s teaching while searching for ergonomic solutions to patient bed transport, as Hayes teaches functional patient imaging for bed sores “Instead of awkwardly holding the camera, the user (the patient) uses a hand-held device such as a cellular phone to connect to the camera” [0037].
Claims 3, 4, and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (US20160367415) in view of Baker (US20170303844) and further in view of Huster (US20150033295).
Regarding claim 3, Hayes-Baker as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Hayes-Baker does not explicitly teach, as taught by Huster:
wherein the particular patient support apparatus is adapted to generate the correlation data based on colocation data received directly from the mobile electronic device when the mobile electronic device is positioned in a common room with the particular patient support apparatus, the colocation data uniquely identifying the mobile electronic device .([[0090] “Server 312 also maintains, within its database, a WAP-to-room association which, as its name implies, associates a WAP ID of each WAP 330 with a room ID. Devices within a patient room having wireless communication capability with one or more WAP's 330 send their respective device ID's to the WAP 330, which then forwards the device ID with the WAP ID to server 312 which, in turn, makes the device-to-room association… bed 320 sends its bed ID to WAP 330.” And [0091] “caregivers communicate with a WAP 330 or similar locating and tracking receiver in order for server 312 or another server of network 326 to track the whereabouts of caregivers within a healthcare facility. In such embodiments, a database of server 312 or another server of network 326 stores the ID's of the universal caregiver interfaces 316 assigned to the various caregivers.” Where the bed and mobile devise associate the wireless access to the network to a specific location)
Regarding claim 3, Baker continues to teach:
and indicating that the digital image was captured while the mobile electronic device was positioned in the common room ([0049] “Standard elements of image metadata include … GPS location and the like. These standard metadata elements are stored as part of the image by the camera when an image is created.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes-Baker with the teachings of Huster, with a reasonable expectation of success, by correlating device and bed ID’s to with a user’s location. This would have automated communication of user location across a hospital. Huster is adaptable to Hayes-Baker as both inventions contain network systems for integrating support beds into patient equipment management. Hayes would have found Huster’s teaching while mitigating risks for safely sharing data because “A balance between the ease of use for a caregiver and the inability of a non-caregiver to access therapy data is an important part of the development of user interfaces for patient support systems and patient support surfaces.” [para 0006].
Regarding claim 4, Hayes-Baker as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. Huster also teaches:
wherein the mobile electronic device is adapted to automatically transmit the colocation data to the particular patient support using wireless communication, the automatic transmission occurring without requiring a user of the mobile electronic device to manually enter any of the colocation data into the mobile electronic device.([[0090] “Server 312 also maintains, within its database, a WAP-to-room association which, as its name implies, associates a WAP ID of each WAP 330 with a room ID. Devices within a patient room having wireless communication capability with one or more WAP's 330 send their respective device ID's to the WAP 330, which then forwards the device ID with the WAP ID to server 312 which, in turn, makes the device-to-room association… bed 320 sends its bed ID to WAP 330.” And [0091] “caregivers communicate with a WAP 330 or similar locating and tracking receiver in order for server 312 or another server of network 326 to track the whereabouts of caregivers within a healthcare facility. In such embodiments, a database of server 312 or another server of network 326 stores the ID's of the universal caregiver interfaces 316 assigned to the various caregivers.” Where the bed and mobile devise associate the wireless access to the network to a specific location)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes-Baker with the teachings of Huster, with a reasonable expectation of success, by signaling device and bed ID’s to wireless access points to determine a user’s location. This would have automated communication of user location across a hospital. Huster is adaptable to Hayes-Baker as both inventions contain network systems for integrating support beds into patient equipment management. Hayes would have found Huster’s teaching while mitigating risks for safely sharing data because “A balance between the ease of use for a caregiver and the inability of a non-caregiver to access therapy data is an important part of the development of user interfaces for patient support systems and patient support surfaces.” [para 0006].
Regarding claim 6, Hayes-Baker teaches all of the limitations of claim 5. Hayes-Baker does not explicitly teach, as taught by Huster:
wherein the mobile electronic device is adapted to wirelessly receive the unique identifier of the particular patient support apparatus while the mobile electronic device is positioned within a common room with the particular patient support apparatus, ([[0090] “Server 312 also maintains, within its database, a WAP-to-room association which, as its name implies, associates a WAP ID of each WAP 330 with a room ID. Devices within a patient room having wireless communication capability with one or more WAP's 330 send their respective device ID's to the WAP 330, which then forwards the device ID with the WAP ID to server 312 which, in turn, makes the device-to-room association… bed 320 sends its bed ID to WAP 330.” And [0091] “caregivers communicate with a WAP 330 or similar locating and tracking receiver in order for server 312 or another server of network 326 to track the whereabouts of caregivers within a healthcare facility. In such embodiments, a database of server 312 or another server of network 326 stores the ID's of the universal caregiver interfaces 316 assigned to the various caregivers.” Where the bed and mobile devise associate the wireless access to the network to a specific location)
Baker continues to teach:
and wherein the mobile electronic device is further adapted to generate the correlation data based on the digital image being captured by the mobile electronic device while the mobile electronic device is positioned in the common room with the particular patient support apparatus. ([0038] “the system may add the unique ID to the image's metadata.” And [0049] “Standard elements of image metadata include … GPS location and the like. These standard metadata elements are stored as part of the image by the camera when an image is created.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes-Baker with the teachings of Huster, with a reasonable expectation of success, by signaling device and bed ID’s to wireless access points to determine a user’s location. This would have automated communication of user location across a hospital. Huster is adaptable to Hayes-Baker as both inventions contain network systems for integrating support beds into patient equipment management. Hayes would have found Huster’s teaching while mitigating risks for safely sharing data because “A balance between the ease of use for a caregiver and the inability of a non-caregiver to access therapy data is an important part of the development of user interfaces for patient support systems and patient support surfaces.” [para 0006].
Regarding claim 7, Hayes-Baker-Huster teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Hayes also teaches:
wherein the particular patient support apparatus is adapted to automatically transmit its unique identifier directly to the mobile electronic device when the mobile electronic device is positioned in the common room with the particular patient support apparatus, the automatic transmission occurring without requiring a user of the mobile electronic device to manually manipulate any controls on the particular patient support apparatus. ([0030]” The control system transmits data from the navigation system and a unique identifier of the patient support apparatus to the remote device. The remote device receives the data from the patient support apparatuses and determines distances of each of the patient support apparatuses from a selected location within a healthcare facility.” Where the location- based data is transmitted automatically)
Regarding claim 8, Hayes-Baker as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 7. Huster also teaches:
wherein the particular patient support apparatus is adapted to automatically transmit its unique identifier to the mobile electronic device using ultrasonic waves. ([0092] “For example, it is contemplated by this disclosure that one of WAP's 330 communicates using … ultrasound, or ultra wide band (UWB) communication technology.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes-Baker with the teachings of Huster, with a reasonable expectation of success, by transmitting digital imagery data of the patient via ultrasonic waves to determine a user’s location. This would have automated communication of user location across a hospital. Huster is adaptable to Hayes as both inventions contain network systems for integrating support beds into patient equipment management. Hayes would have found Huster’s teaching while mitigating risks for safely sharing data because “A balance between the ease of use for a caregiver and the inability of a non-caregiver to access therapy data is an important part of the development of user interfaces for patient support systems and patient support surfaces.” [para 0006].
Claims 44, 45, 53 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (US20160367415) in view of Huster (US20150033295).
Regarding claim 44, Hayes teaches:
A caregiver assistance system for assisting a caregiver in caring for patients, the caregiver assistance system comprising: ([0135] “FIG. 10 illustrates in greater detail one embodiment of a patient support apparatus system 150 that may be utilized in a healthcare facility”)
(a) a plurality of patient support apparatuses, each of the patient support apparatuses comprising: ([0135] “Patient support apparatus system 150 includes a plurality of patient support apparatuses”)
a litter frame; ([Fig 1] a frame or litter (28))
a support deck supported on the litter frame and configured to support a patient thereon; ([Fig 1] support deck (30); see also [0056] “Patient support apparatus 20 of FIG. 1 includes a base 22 having a plurality of wheels 24, a pair of lifts 26 supported on the base, a frame or litter 28 supported by the lifts 26, and a deck 30 that is supported on top of litter 28.”)
a memory containing a unique identifier uniquely identifying the respective patient support apparatus; ([0104] “FIG. 5 shows in greater detail one illustrative embodiment of object/landmark detection system 80. Object/landmark detection system 80 includes one or more image sensors 91, a processor 92, a ranging subsystem 78, and a memory 94. “)
a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a local area network; ([0063] “In some embodiments, off-board communication module 56 is a Wi-Fi transceiver that is adapted to communicate using the WIFI protocol (e.g. any of the IEEE 802.11 standards) with one or more wireless access points of the healthcare facility's computer network.”)
a short range transmitter adapted to periodically transmit a short range wireless signal adapted to be detected by a mobile electronic device, the short range wireless signal including the unique identifier; ([0073] “In one embodiment, the absolute position of patient support apparatus 20 is provided by fixed locators that comprise wall mounted beacons that transmit a short range message with a unique ID. The location of each of these wall mounted beacons is surveyed and stored in a memory ( either on board patient support apparatus 20 and/or at remote device 64). Because the beacons only transmit over a very short range, the detection of their short range messages by communication module 56 means that patient support apparatus 20 is currently located essentially at the location of the beacon ( or within a few feet of the beacon).”)
and a controller in communication with the memory and the network transceiver, ([0064] “Controller 58 (FIG. 2) is in communication with off-board communication module 56, navigation system 60, user interface 44, and exit detection system 62. Controller 58 processes the data received from each of these components and forwards, as appropriate, commands to one or more of the other components based upon the received data. In general, controller 58 oversees the operation of components 56, 60, 44, and 62, and coordinates communication between these components.“) the controller adapted to transmit the unique identifier off the respective patient support apparatus via the network transceiver; ([0026] “The patient support apparatus includes a frame, wheels, a support surface, a navigation system, a wireless transceiver, and a control system adapted to transmit both data from the navigation system and a unique identifier corresponding to the patient support apparatus.”) and
(b) a caregiver assistance application embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and adapted to be executed on a server hosted on the local area network, the caregiver assistance application adapted, when executed by the server, to perform the following: ([0078] “Server application 74 determines the locations of each patient support apparatus 20 within the facility, updates those locations as the patient support apparatuses 20 move, and maintains a log of their locations over time.”)
(i) communicate with the mobile electronic device, the mobile electronic device comprising a display, a camera, and a user input, ([0077] “In some embodiments, healthcare staff software application 76 is installed on mobile electronic devices 64b as a cell phone app, while being installed on computers 64c as a desktop software application.“ where a cell phone has a display, camera, and user input); see also [0081] “In at least one such embodiment, a caregiver is able to access application 76 to determine an estimate of how much time before a particular patient support apparatus 20 arrives at the location of that caregiver, or at any other location that the caregiver may enter into application 76 using his or her mobile electronic device 64b (which may be a smart cell phone, a tablet computer, or other mobile electronic device).”)
Regarding claim 44, Hayes does not explicitly teach, as taught by Huster:
wherein the mobile electronic device is adapted to receive the short range wireless signal from a particular patient support apparatus when the mobile electronic device is positioned in a common room with the particular patient support apparatus; ([0109] “a pairing operation is undertaken by the caregiver to link the interface 316 with the patient care devices 358 in the room…. When brought within a short distance (e.g., 3 feet) of one another” and [0090] “Server 312 also maintains, within its database, a WAP-to-room association” Where the bed and mobile devise associate the wireless access to the network to a specific location)
(ii) receive from the mobile electronic device [comprising a caregiver interface] data regarding a patient assigned to the particular patient support apparatus; ([0040] “In such embodiments, the at least one universal caregiver interface may send a message to an electronic medical records (EMR) computer device located remotely from the patient room to indicate at least one of a time at which medicine delivery to the patient was started and the medicine delivery to the patient.”)
(iii) receive from the mobile electronic device the unique identifier of the particular patient support apparatus, thereby associating the patient with the particular patient support apparatus without requiring the caregiver to identify the patient; (see [0109] and [0090] “Server 312 also maintains, within its database, a WAP-to-room association as its name implies, associates a WAP ID of each WAP 330 with a room ID. Devices within a patient room having wireless communication capability with one or more WAP's 330 send their respective device ID's to the WAP 330, which then forwards the device ID with the WAP ID to server 312 which, in turn, makes the device-to-room association… bed 320 sends its bed ID to WAP 330.” And [0091] “caregivers communicate with a WAP 330 or similar locating and tracking receiver in order for server 312 or another server of network 326 to track the whereabouts of caregivers within a healthcare facility. In such embodiments, a database of server 312 or another server of network 326 stores the ID's of the universal caregiver interfaces 316 assigned to the various caregivers.”)
(iv) use the unique identifier of the particular patient support apparatus received from the mobile electronic device to correlate the data with a unique identifier of the patient assigned to the particular patient support apparatus ([0106] “an input for bed exit coordination is shown on one or both of interfaces 314, 316 and is selected by a caregiver to move lift 322 to a use position, to suppress a bed exit alarm of the hospital bed 320, and to chart a patient exit from the hospital bed 320 to the EMR computer device 346 which is located remotely from the patient room.” Where charting the patient move from one location to another uses the unique patient ID and patient support apparatus ID)
and(v) store the data in a record associated with the unique identifier of the patient ( see [0106] above)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes-Baker with the teachings of Huster, with a reasonable expectation of success, by signaling device and bed ID’s to wireless access points to determine a user’s location. This would have automated communication of user location across a hospital. Huster is adaptable to Hayes-Baker as both inventions contain network systems for integrating support beds into patient equipment management. Hayes would have found Huster’s teaching while mitigating risks for safely sharing data because “A balance between the ease of use for a caregiver and the inability of a non-caregiver to access therapy data is an important part of the development of user interfaces for patient support systems and patient support surfaces.” [para 0006].
Regarding claim 45, Hayes-Huster as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 44. Huster also teaches:
wherein the mobile electronic device is adapted to automatically transmit the data to the caregiver assistance application without requiring a user of the mobile electronic device to manually enter any information uniquely identifying the particular patient support apparatus or the patient assigned to the particular patient support apparatus. (see [0109] and [0090] above; see also [0113] “The data shown on screen 3 during transport 366, 366' includes basic information about the patient, such as patient name and the most recent vital sign readings for the patient in some embodiments”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes-Baker with the teachings of Huster, with a reasonable expectation of success, by signaling device and bed ID’s to wireless access points to determine a user’s location. This would have automated communication of user location across a hospital. Huster is adaptable to Hayes-Baker as both inventions contain network systems for integrating support beds into patient equipment management. Hayes would have found Huster’s teaching while mitigating risks for safely sharing data because “A balance between the ease of use for a caregiver and the inability of a non-caregiver to access therapy data is an important part of the development of user interfaces for patient support systems and patient support surfaces.” [para 0006].
Regarding claim 53, Hayes-Huster as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 44. Huster also teaches:
wherein the short range transmitter is an ultrasonic transmitter ([0092] “For example, it is contemplated by this disclosure that one of WAP's 330 communicates using … ultrasound, or ultra wide band (UWB) communication technology.” Where communication occurs via the transmitter)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Huster, with a reasonable chance of success, by automatically messaging pertinent patient information, via an ultrasound transmitter, to healthcare providers that are anticipating the patient’s arrival. This would have increased the speed and quality of a patient’s care by reducing the amount of travel needed to carry out imaging services. Hayes is adaptable to Huster as both inventions integrate medical bed applications into general use hardware, such as mobile devices and short range transmitters, located inside a medical facility. Hayes would have found Huster’s teaching while mitigating risks for safely sharing data because “A balance between the ease of use for a caregiver and the inability of a non-caregiver to access therapy data is an important part of the development of user interfaces for patient support systems and patient support surfaces.” [para 0006].
Regarding claim 57, Hayes-Huster as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 45. Hayes also teaches:
wherein the caregiver assistance application is further adapted to instruct the mobile electronic device to display rounding data thereon, the rounding data indicating at least one of: an amount of time since a caregiver last completed a rounding task associated with the particular patient, or an amount of time until the caregiver is supposed to complete a future rounding task associated with the particular patient. ([0026] “The remote device is adapted to receive the data and to determine an estimated time of arrival of the patient support apparatus at a particular destination within a healthcare facility based upon the data.” Where the timing of transporting patients from locations in the facility depicts rounding data in the form of an estimated time until the caregiver will complete a transfer of a patient)
Claims 46-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (US20160367415) in view of Huster (US20150033295) and further in view of Baker (US20170303844).
Regarding claim 46, Hayes-Huster as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 45. Regarding claim 46, Hayes-Huster does not explicitly teach, as taught by Baker:
wherein the data relates to a skin condition of the patient assigned to the particular patient support apparatus, ([0020-0021] “skin feature imaging system 100 is used to screen for, monitor, or diagnose various other skin conditions… The device 102 is used to capture images of the patient's P skin. In embodiments, the patient P operates the device 102”)
Hayes-Huster-Baker continues to teach:
and the caregiver assistance application is further adapted to send a message to an electronic medical records server in communication with the server, ([0023] “the skin feature monitoring engine 105 may operate over distributed systems (e.g., cloud-based computing systems), where application functionality, memory, data storage and retrieval and various processing functions may be operated remotely from each other over a distributed computing network,” where data storage and retrieval across a network comprises sending a message) the message including the data and a patient identifier uniquely identifying the patient assigned to the particular patient support apparatus. ( see [0023] above, see also [0024] “Generally, the skin feature monitoring engine 105 operates to, for example, guide the image capture of the patient's P skin, analyze the captured images, and present the images and analysis to the medical professional MP”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Baker, with a reasonable expectation of success, by incorporating the skin imaging diagnosis, location services, and messaging tool into the wireless access point devices for the patient support apparatuses. This would have allowed for healthcare professionals to seamlessly transfer diagnostic data from one network device to another. Baker is adaptable to Hayes as both inventions integrate data processing into the healthcare facility network of devices. Hayes would have been well aware of the sores that accrue in patient’s during transport and bed management, as solved in Baker. Additionally, Hayes would have found Baker’s teaching while searching for ergonomic solutions to patient bed transport, as Hayes teaches functional patient imaging for bed sores “Instead of awkwardly holding the camera, the user (the patient) uses a hand-held device such as a cellular phone to connect to the camera” [0037].
Regarding claim 47, Hayes-Huster as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 46. Baker also teaches:
wherein the caregiver assistance application is further adapted to receive from the mobile electronic device a digital image of the skin of the patient assigned to the particular patient support apparatus, wherein the digital image is captured by the camera.([0022] “The device 102 includes a camera 103 and a skin feature monitoring engine 105.” And [0024] “Generally, the skin feature monitoring engine 105 operates to, for example, guide the image capture of the patient's P skin, analyze the captured images, and present the images and analysis to the medical professional MP”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Baker, with a reasonable expectation of success, by incorporating the skin imaging diagnosis, location services, and messaging tool into the wireless access point devices for the patient support apparatuses. This would have allowed for healthcare professionals to seamlessly transfer diagnostic data from one network device to another. Baker is adaptable to Hayes as both inventions integrate data processing into the healthcare facility network of devices. Hayes would have been well aware of the sores that accrue in patient’s during transport and bed management, as solved in Baker. Additionally, Hayes would have found Baker’s teaching while searching for ergonomic solutions to patient bed transport, as Hayes teaches functional patient imaging for bed sores “Instead of awkwardly holding the camera, the user (the patient) uses a hand-held device such as a cellular phone to connect to the camera” [0037].
Regarding claim 48, Hayes-Huster-Baker as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 47. Baker also teaches:
wherein the message includes the digital image. ([0064] “Analyzing images (operation 210) begins with receiving images and data (operation 302). The device 102 transmits the images, including any metadata and additional data associated with the patient and/or the skin features, via network 106 to the server 108 for analysis.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Baker, with a reasonable expectation of success, by incorporating the skin imaging diagnosis, location services, and messaging tool into the wireless access point devices for the patient support apparatuses. This would have allowed for healthcare professionals to seamlessly transfer diagnostic data from one network device to another. Baker is adaptable to Hayes as both inventions integrate data processing into the healthcare facility network of devices. Hayes would have been well aware of the sores that accrue in patient’s during transport and bed management, as solved in Baker. Additionally, Hayes would have found Baker’s teaching while searching for ergonomic solutions to patient bed transport, as Hayes teaches functional patient imaging for bed sores “Instead of awkwardly holding the camera, the user (the patient) uses a hand-held device such as a cellular phone to connect to the camera” [0037].
Regarding claim 49, Hayes-Huster-Baker as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 48. Baker also teaches:
wherein the mobile electronic device is adapted to not transmit to the caregiver assistance application any personal identification data that identifies the patient assigned to the particular patient support apparatus. ([0027] “Database 112 may contain de-identified data such as image, encrypted electronic protected health information (ePHI), or coded patient data,” where the patient support apparatus transmits, to the application, personal identification data assigned to a particular patient support apparatus)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Baker, with a reasonable expectation of success, by incorporating the skin imaging diagnosis, location services, and messaging tool into the wireless access point devices for the patient support apparatuses. This would have allowed for healthcare professionals to seamlessly transfer diagnostic data from one network device to another. Baker is adaptable to Hayes as both inventions integrate data processing into the healthcare facility network of devices. Hayes would have been well aware of the sores that accrue in patient’s during transport and bed management, as solved in Baker. Additionally, Hayes would have found Baker’s teaching while searching for ergonomic solutions to patient bed transport, as Hayes teaches functional patient imaging for bed sores “Instead of awkwardly holding the camera, the user (the patient) uses a hand-held device such as a cellular phone to connect to the camera” [0037].
Regarding claim 50, Hayes-Huster-Baker as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 49. Regarding claim 50, Huster also teaches:
wherein the mobile electronic device is further adapted to automatically delete the digital image after transmitting the message to the caregiver assistance application. ([0128] “patient-related data is removed from interfaces 314, 316 and wireless communication devices 350 when the caregiver leaves the patient room”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Huster, with a reasonable chance of success, by being adapted to automatically delete digital images from mobile devices after sharing the imaging with healthcare providers. This would have increased the speed and quality of a patient’s care by reducing the amount of input a healthcare provider would need to securely transition patient history information outside of their mobile device. Hayes is adaptable to Huster as these disclosures integrate medical applications into general use hardware, such as mobile devices, located inside a medical facility. Hayes would have found Huster’s teaching while mitigating risks for safely sharing data because “A balance between the ease of use for a caregiver and the inability of a non-caregiver to access therapy data is an important part of the development of user interfaces for patient support systems and patient support surfaces.” [para 0006].
Claims 26 and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (US20160367415) in view of Becker (WO2018013666)
Regarding claim 26, Hayes teaches:
A caregiver assistance system for assisting a caregiver in caring for patients. the caregiver assistance system comprising: ([0135] “FIG. 10 illustrates in greater detail one embodiment of a patient support apparatus system 150 that may be utilized in a healthcare facility”)
(a) a plurality of patient support apparatuses, each of the patient support apparatuses comprising: ([0135] “Patient support apparatus system 150 includes a plurality of patient support apparatuses”)
a litter frame; ([Fig 1] a frame or litter (28))
a support deck supported on the litter frame and configured to support a patient thereon: ([Fig 1] support deck (30); see also [0056] “Patient support apparatus 20 of FIG. 1 includes a base 22 having a plurality of wheels 24, a pair of lifts 26 supported on the base, a frame or litter 28 supported by the lifts 26, and a deck 30 that is supported on top of litter 28.”)
a memory containing a unique identifier uniquely identifying the respective patient support apparatus; ([0026] “The patient support apparatus includes a frame, wheels, a support surface, a navigation system, a wireless transceiver, and a control system adapted to transmit both data from the navigation system and a unique identifier corresponding to the patient support apparatus”)
a transceiver; ([0063] “In some embodiments, off-board communication module 56 is a WiFi transceiver that is adapted to communicate using the WiFi protocol (e.g. any of the IEEE 802.11 standards) with one or more wireless access points of the healthcare facility's computer network.”)
and a controller in communication with the memory and the transceiver, ([0064] “Controller 58 (FIG. 2) is in communication with off-board communication module 56, navigation system 60, user interface 44, and exit detection system 62. Controller 58 processes the data received from each of these components and forwards, as appropriate, commands to one or more of the other components based upon the received data. In general, controller 58 oversees the operation of components 56, 60, 44, and 62, and coordinates communication between these components. “) the controller adapted to transmit the unique identifier off the respective patient support apparatus; ([0026] “The patient support apparatus includes a frame, wheels, a support surface, a navigation system, a wireless transceiver, and a control system adapted to transmit both data from the navigation system and a unique identifier corresponding to the patient support apparatus.”) and
(b) a caregiver assistance application embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and adapted to be executed on a server, ([0078] “Server application 74 determines the locations of each patient support apparatus 20 within the facility, updates those locations as the patient support apparatuses 20 move, and maintains a log of their locations over time.”) the caregiver assistance application adapted , when executed by the server, to perform the following:
(i) communicate with a mobile electronic device comprising a display, a camera, and a user input, ([0077] “In some embodiments, healthcare staff software application 76 is installed on mobile electronic devices 64b as a cell phone app, while being installed on computers 64c as a desktop software application.“ where a cell phone has a display, camera, and user input)
(ii) receive from the mobile electronic device the service request; ([0088] “The alert is communicated to staff application 76” where the application uses a portable electronic device to submit the service request)
(iii) identify the particular patient support apparatus utilizing service correlation data associating the service request with the particular patient support apparatus; and ([0088] “when the total distance traveled by a patient support apparatus 20 exceeds a threshold, application 74 generates an alert indicating that maintenance should be performed on that particular patient support apparatus 20. The alert is communicated to staff application” where the cumulative distance is correlated with the maintenance needs of the apparatus)
(iv) send a message to a service server in communication with the server, the message including data identifying both the service request and the particular patient support apparatus. (([0088] “The alert is communicated to staff application 76” where the staff application is hosted on a server in communication with a mobile computing device)
Regarding claim 26, Hayes does not explicitly teach, as taught by Becker:
wherein the mobile electronic device is adapted to present a service request option on the display, the service request option adapted to allow a user of the mobile electronic device to make a service request for a particular patient support apparatus without requiring the user of the mobile electronic device to manually enter any data uniquely identifying the particular patient support apparatus; the service request requesting that service be performed on the particular patient support apparatus; ([Figure 9] and [0182] “The service request icon 124 provides a means by which a user can easily request servicing of any of the displayed medical devices 32” can occur on a mobile device)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Becker, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the medical device’s operation data to communicate necessary and routine service requests in their medical device system. This would have increased the speed and quality of a patient’s care by reducing down time in between a medical device needing service and servicing the device. Becker is adaptable to Hayes as both Stryker inventions share performance data of medical devices, such as beds, to track a device’s progress in the healthcare facility. Hayes would have found Becker’s teaching while reviewing Stryker’s own patent portfolio of bed management systems.
Regarding claim 28, Hayes -Becker as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 26. Becker also teaches:
wherein the caregiver assistance application is further adapted to receive a digital image of at least a portion of the particular patient support apparatus from the mobile electronic device, and to forward the digital image to the service server. ([00199] “Product image 152 is an image displayed on a user interface of the type of medical device 32 whose data is being displayed on screen shot” where the product image is received from a device image record and can be captured from a mobile device)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Becker, with a reasonable chance of success, by communicating medical device information, to support necessary and routine service requests in their medical device system. This would have increased the speed and quality of a patient’s care by reducing down time in between servicing a medical device. Becker is adaptable to Hayes as both Stryker inventions share imaging data of medical devices to track various devices’ performance indicators in the healthcare facility. Hayes would have found Becker’s teaching while reviewing Stryker’s own patent portfolio of bed management systems.
Regarding claim 29, Hayes -Becker as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 26. Becker also teaches:
wherein the caregiver assistance application is further adapted to receive the service correlation data from the particular patient support apparatus. ([0020] “In still other embodiments, the cloud based service uses usage data and repair data gathered from multiple ones of the medical devices to predict when a medical device may need repair in the future.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Becker, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the medical device’s operation data to communicate necessary and routine service requests in their medical device system. This would have increased the speed and quality of a patient’s care by reducing down time in between a medical device needing service and servicing the device. Becker is adaptable to Hayes as both Stryker inventions share performance data of medical devices, such as beds, to track a device’s progress in the healthcare facility. Hayes would have found Becker’s teaching while reviewing Stryker’s own patent portfolio of bed management systems.
Regarding claim 30, Hayes -Becker as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 29. Becker also teaches:
wherein the particular patient support apparatus is adapted to generate the service correlation data based on colocation data received directly from the mobile electronic device when the mobile electronic device is positioned in a common room with the particular patient support apparatus, the colocation data uniquely identifying the mobile electronic device and indicating that the service request was made while the mobile electronic device was positioned in the common room. ([00109] Equipment management system 20 may also operate in conjunction with medical devices 32 that do not include any location sensors built into the medical devices 32… medical devices 32 need not include an integrated location sensor but instead may have a physically separate structure (such as an RF ID tag) attached to medical device 32. The sharing of location information between the RTLS system and equipment management system 20 occurs”; see also [00197] “screen shot 82f that is representative of the type of data displayed on user interface 38 when a user selects a particular medical device. Screen shot includes … a last known location box 162, an event log 164,” where the event log and the location data of each medical device are tracked by the system)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Becker, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the medical device’s operation data to communicate necessary and routine service requests in their medical device system. This would have increased the speed and quality of a patient’s care by reducing down time in between a medical device needing service and servicing the device. Becker is adaptable to Hayes as both Stryker inventions share performance data of medical devices, such as beds, to track a device’s progress in the healthcare facility. Hayes would have found Becker’s teaching while reviewing Stryker’s own patent portfolio of bed management systems.
Regarding claim 31, Hayes- Becker as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 30. Hayes also teaches:
wherein the mobile electronic device is adapted to automatically transmit the colocation data using wireless communication, the automatic transmission occurring without requiring a user of the mobile electronic device to manually enter any of the colocation data into the mobile electronic device. ([00109] “the medical facility 26 may include a separate real time locating system (RTLS) that keeps track of the locations of medical devices 32 and shares this location information with system 20… The sharing of location information between the RTLS system and equipment management system 20 occurs, in one embodiment, by location server 65— which is either a part of, or in communication with, the RTLS system— communicating the locations of medical devices 32 to local management server 34. Other types of information sharing may also occur.” Where the real time location system comprises, a mobile electronic device automatically transmitting colocation data; see also[0144] “after a patient support apparatus 220 has responded to a request … system 150 is adapted to automatically command the patient support apparatus 220 to travel to a cleaning area, such as maintenance area” where the maintenance is initiated by colocation data transmitting automatically to the system)
Regarding claim 32, Hayes -Becker as a combination teach all of the limitations of claim 26. Becker also teaches:
wherein the caregiver assistance application is further adapted to receive the service correlation data from the mobile electronic device. (([00197] “screen shot 82f that is representative of the type of data displayed on user interface 38 when a user selects a particular medical device. Screen shot includes … a last known location box 162, an event log 164,” where the event log is service correlation data tracked on a cell phone; see also [0012] “The user interface forwards the data request to the cloud based service by accessing a web page associated with the cloud based service” where the user interface is a cell phone receiving service correlation data)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Becker, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the medical device’s operation data to communicate necessary and routine service requests in their medical device system. This would have increased the speed and quality of a patient’s care by reducing down time in between a medical device needing service and servicing the device. Becker is adaptable to Hayes as both Stryker inventions share performance data of medical devices, such as beds, to track a device’s progress in the healthcare facility. Hayes would have found Becker’s teaching while reviewing Stryker’s own patent portfolio of bed management systems.
Regarding claim 33, Hayes-Becker as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 32. Becker also teaches:
wherein the mobile electronic device is adapted to wirelessly receive the unique identifier of the particular patient support apparatus while the mobile electronic device is positioned within a common room with the particular patient support apparatus, ([0010] “each of the medical devices includes a unique identifier and a transmitter. The transmitters transmit the device data and the unique identifier to the cloud based service through the local network appliance.” where the network appliance is a smart phone) and wherein the mobile electronic device is further adapted to generate the service correlation data based on the service request being made while the mobile electronic device is positioned in the common room with the particular patient support apparatus. (([00197] “screen shot 82f that is representative of the type of data displayed on user interface 38 when a user selects a particular medical device. Screen shot includes … a last known location box 162, an event log 164,”, where the location information and service request events are based on location information generated while in communication with the mobile electronic device)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Becker, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the medical device’s operation data to communicate necessary and routine service requests in their medical device system. This would have increased the speed and quality of a patient’s care by reducing down time in between a medical device needing service and servicing the device. Becker is adaptable to Hayes as both Stryker inventions share performance data of medical devices, such as beds, to track a device’s progress in the healthcare facility. Hayes would have found Becker’s teaching while reviewing Stryker’s own patent portfolio of bed management systems.
Regarding claim 34, Hayes-Becker as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 33. Hayes also teaches:
wherein the particular patient support apparatus is adapted to automatically transmit its unique identifier directly to the mobile electronic device when the mobile electronic device is positioned in the common room with the particular patient support apparatus, the automatic transmission occurring without requiring a user of the mobile electronic device to manually manipulate any controls on the particular patient support apparatus. ([0030] “The control system transmits data from the navigation system and a unique identifier of the patient support apparatus to the remote device.” where transmitting the unique identifier occurs automatically, see also [0082] “In one such embodiment, application 76 operates on a cell phone and automatically utilizes the conventional location services built into the cell phone, or a building specific location app that executes on the cell phone.” )
Claim 51 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (US20160367415) in view of Huster (US20150033295) and further in view of Becker (WO2018013666)
Regarding claim 51, Hayes-Huster as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 45. Hayes-Huster as a combination does not explicitly teach, as taught by Becker:
wherein the data relates to a service request for the particular patient support apparatus, and the caregiver assistance application is further adapted to send a message to a service server in communication with the server, the message including information identifying both the service request and the particular patient support apparatus. ([00183] “computer device 36 sends a message to management service 22 indicating that service has been requested for the selected medical device 32. Management service 22 consults service status record 80j contained within the digital replica 46 for that particular medical device 32.”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Becker, with a reasonable chance of success, by using the medical device’s operation data to track necessary and routine service requests in their medical device system. This would have increased the speed and quality of a patient’s care by reducing down time in between a medical device needing service and servicing the device. Becker is adaptable to Hayes as both Stryker inventions share performance data of medical devices, such as beds, to track a device’s progress in the healthcare facility. Hayes would have found Becker’s teaching while reviewing the Stryer’s own patent portfolio of bed management systems.
Regarding claim 52, Hayes-Huster-Becker as a combination teaches all of the limitations of claim 51. Regarding claim 52, Becker also teaches:
wherein the caregiver assistance application is further adapted to receive a digital image of at least a portion of the particular patient support apparatus from the mobile electronic device, and to forward the digital image to the service server. ([00199] “Product image 152 is an image displayed on a user interface of the type of medical device 32 whose data is being displayed on screen shot” where the product image is received from a device image record and can be captured from a mobile device)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hayes with the teachings of Becker, with a reasonable chance of success, by communicating medical device information, to support necessary and routine service requests in their medical device system. This would have increased the speed and quality of a patient’s care by reducing down time in between servicing a medical device. Becker is adaptable to Hayes as both Stryker inventions share imaging data of medical devices to track various devices’ performance indicators in the healthcare facility. Hayes would have found Becker’s teaching while reviewing Stryker’s own patent portfolio of bed management systems.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mandawat et al. (US 20210183500) discloses receiving medical image data, determining a category of medical information, viewing the medical image data, transmitting a request for confirmation of a medical condition associated with the category of medical information to view the medical image data in an image viewing application running on the viewing device before an end of a timeout period.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT ANTHONY SKROBARCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-3301. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 7:30AM -5PM CST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/R.A.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685