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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 7/16/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The 35 USC 102 Claim Rejections detailed in the Non-Final Rejection filed on 4/16/2025 have been withdrawn in light of the “Amendments/Remarks” filed on 7/16/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde (US 20140090171 A1) in view of Elliot (US 20080172789 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hyde discloses a patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) for a patient, the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) comprising: a base (body structure 104); a patient support surface (surface 106) supported by the base (body structure 104); an actuator (motor 118) configured to move the patient disposed on the patient support surface (“configured to drive one or more of the plurality of rotatable members 110”; [0044]), the actuator being operable at different rates of actuation (“configured to cause a change in position, acceleration, direction, momentum or the like, of the transport and support vehicle 102”; [0045]); a user input device (operator-authorization device 130) configured to generate a user input signal (“operator-authorization device 130 having an input interface”; [0062]), the user input device including a voice actuation interface (audio control module 314); an identification device (verification module 144) configured to identify a role of a caregiver} adjacent to the patient support surface (“operator-authorization device 130 includes a verification module 144 for determining whether the operator is an authorized operator 140”; [0065]); and a controller (operator-guided vehicle navigation controller 156) disposed in communication with the actuator, the user input device, and the identification device (“156 operably coupled to at least one or more of the operator-authorization device 130, the steering assembly 126, the power source 116, or the motor 118”; [0083]), the controller being configured to enable the voice actuation interface based on the identified role of the caregiver} adjacent to the patient support surface determined by the identification device (“operator-authorization device 130 includes a verification module 144 for determining whether the operator is an authorized operator 140”; [0065]), and to transmit an output signal to the actuator to control the actuator to move the patient disposed on the patient support surface in response to the user input signal generated by the voice actuation interface (“audio control module 314 operably coupled to the operator-guided vehicle navigation controller 156 and configured to receive one or more voice command inputs from the operator…navigation control command for controlling a destination of the transport and support vehicle 102”; [0104]).
Hyde fails to explicitly disclose {an actuator configured to move the patient disposed on the patient support surface} relative to the base; {an identification device configured to identify a role of a} caregiver adjacent to the patient support surface.
However, Elliot teaches {an actuator configured to move the patient disposed on the patient support surface} relative to the base (“for example, to raise the head end of the bed”; [0046]); {an identification device configured to identify a role of a} caregiver (“user may be a health care provider or the patient”; [0046]) adjacent to the patient support surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Hyde by adding movement relative to the base and caregiver voice automation as taught by Elliot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “controlling various features on the bed”; (Elliot, [0154]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 1, wherein the voice actuation interface includes a microphone in communication with the controller to receive one or more voice activation commands (“audio-activated control module 312 includes a voice-command recognition device 316 including one or more transducers operable to detect an operator-specific input”; [0111]).
Regarding Claim 7, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 1, further comprising a voice activation enabling device (voice-command recognition device 316) in communication with the controller; and wherein actuation of the voice activation enabling device enables the voice actuation interface to provide the user input signal (“operable to recognize an operator-specific input, receive one or more speech inputs, and generate transport route information based on the one or more speech inputs”; [0105]).
Regarding Claim 9, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 7, wherein the voice activation enabling device comprises at least one of a button, a gesture sensing device, a microphone, a foot pedal, and a sensor (“voice-command recognition device 316 including a voice-command control module 318 having one or more transducers”; [0105]).
Regarding Claim 10, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 1, wherein the controller (operator-guided vehicle navigation controller 156) is further configured to determine a desired rate of operation (“configured to cause a change in position, acceleration, direction, momentum or the like, of the transport and support vehicle 102”; [0045]) for the actuator based on a combination of the user input signal (“audio input to at least one navigation control command for controlling at least one of propulsion, braking, steering”; [0020]) and one or more of: medical procedure data comprising a type of medical procedure undergone by the patient, a duration since last medical procedure, a duration since admittance, or combinations thereof; patient characteristic data comprising height, fall risk data, width, age, weight, body mass index, or combinations thereof; caregiver observation data comprising psychological data, phobia data, pain sensitivity data, nausea data, or combinations thereof; medication data; prior injury data; or combinations thereof (“transport and support vehicle 102 includes a self-propelled operator-guided vehicle navigation controller 156 having a computing device and memory to provide a control signal to navigate”; [0116] and “control module includes memory that stores…patient identification information”; [0051])
Regarding Claim 11, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 1, wherein the controller (operator-guided vehicle navigation controller 156) is further configured to determine a desired rate of operation (“configured to cause a change in position, acceleration, direction, momentum or the like, of the transport and support vehicle 102”; [0045]) for the actuator based on the user input signal (“audio input to at least one navigation control command for controlling at least one of propulsion, braking, steering”; [0020]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 11, further comprising memory disposed in electronic communication with the controller to store data associated with a plurality of operational modes, each operational mode corresponding to a predetermined rate of operation for the actuator “(at least one control module includes memory that stores operator-guide verification information, operator-guide identification information, operator-guide registration information, patient identification information, navigation plan information, travel path markings information, travel-route status information, vehicle status information, travel-route status information, etc.”; [0051]); and wherein the controller is further configured to determine the desired rate of operation of the actuator based on the operational mode selected using the voice actuation interface (“correlate the audio input to at least one navigation control command for controlling at least one of propulsion, braking, steering of the transport and support vehicle”; [0103]).
Regarding Claim 13, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 12, wherein the plurality of operational modes comprise one or more of a patient mode, a cleaning mode, or a transport mode (“propulsion, braking, steering of the transport and support vehicle”; [0103]).
Regarding Claim 14, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 12, wherein the controller (operator-guided vehicle navigation controller 156) is further configured to enable or disable selection of one or more operational modes (“once it has been determined that an operator is an authorized operator 140 of the transport and support vehicle 102, operator-authorization device 130 is operable to enable an automatic controlled state, a manual controlled state, an operator-guided state, or remote controlled state”; [0087]) based on the identified role of the caregiver adjacent to the patient support surface (“transport and support vehicle determines navigation control commands for controlling the transport and support vehicle 102 based on gesture information, movement information, or the like, associated with an authorized operator 140.”; [0087]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 12, wherein the controller (operator-guided vehicle navigation controller 156) is further configured to select one of the operational modes (“automatic controlled state, a manual controlled state, an operator-guided state, or remote controlled state”; [0087]) based on the identified role of the caregiver adjacent to the patient support surface (“transport and support vehicle determines navigation control commands for controlling the transport and support vehicle 102 based on gesture information, movement information, or the like, associated with an authorized operator 140.”; [0087]).
Regarding Claim 16, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 1, wherein the user input device further includes one or more buttons for controlling operation of the actuator (“module includes…input/output components such as, for example, a graphical user interface, a display, a keyboard, a keypad, a trackball, a joystick, a touch-screen, a mouse, a switch, a dial, or the like, and any other peripheral device”; [0052]).
Regarding Claim 17, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 16, wherein the controller (operator-guided vehicle navigation controller 156) is further configured to enable or disable operation of the one or more buttons based on the identified role of the caregiver adjacent to the patient support surface (“once it has been determined that an operator is an authorized operator 140 of the transport and support vehicle 102, operator-authorization device 130 is operable to enable an automatic controlled state, a manual controlled state, an operator-guided state, or remote-controlled state”; [0087]).
Regarding Claim 18, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 1, further comprising a sensing system (sensors 150) in communication with the controller, the sensing system configured to provide a sensor input signal to the controller (“navigation module 154 operably coupled to the one or more sensors and configured to generate one or more control commands”; [0074]).
Regarding Claim 19, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 18.
Hyde fails to explicitly teach the sensing system comprises a patient sensor in communication with the controller, the patient sensor configured to determine whether the patient is disposed adjacent to the patient support surface.
However, Elliot teaches a sensing system comprises a patient sensor in communication with the controller, the patient sensor configured to determine whether the patient is disposed adjacent to the patient support surface (“device comprises a plurality of pressure sensors, for example load cells, that are in communication with the controller and which can be used to determine the weight of the patient, the vital signs of the patient, whether the patient has high pressure points, and/or if the patient has exited the bed”; [0028]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Hyde by adding the patient sensor taught by Elliot to the sensing system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “determine the weight of the patient the vital signs of the patient, whether the patient has high pressure points, and/or if the patient has exited the bed”; (Elliot, [0028]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 20, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 19.
Hyde fails to explicitly teach wherein the patient sensor comprises a force sensor, a load cell, a motion sensor, a camera, a switch, an optical sensor, an infrared sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, an accelerometer, a potentiometer, an ultrasonic sensor, or combinations thereof.
However, Elliot teaches wherein the patient sensor comprises a force sensor, a load cell, a motion sensor, a camera, a switch, an optical sensor, an infrared sensor, an electromagnetic sensor, an accelerometer, a potentiometer, an ultrasonic sensor, or combinations thereof (“device comprises a plurality of pressure sensors, for example load cells”; [0028]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Hyde by adding the load sensor taught by Elliot to the sensing system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to (“determine the weight of the patient the vital signs of the patient, whether the patient has high pressure points, and/or if the patient has exited the bed”; (Elliot, [0028]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde (US 20140090171 A1) in view of Elliot (US 20080172789 A1), further in view of Fehr (US 20080300777 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Hyde discloses the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 2.
Hyde in view of Elliot fails to explicitly teach the one or more voice activation commands includes a stop command; and wherein the controller is further configured to interrupt operation of the actuator in response to receiving the stop command from the voice actuation interface.
However, Fehr teaches one or more voice activation commands (“commands can be either audio commands”; [0063]) includes a stop command; and wherein the controller is further configured to interrupt operation of the actuator in response to receiving the stop command from the voice actuation interface (“the rider may stop the travel of the wheelchair 20 by issuing a command to discontinue travel, such as to wait or stop. These commands interrupt the wheelchair’s motion, and the chair 20 remains stationary”; [0063]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Hyde in view of Elliot by adding the stop command taught by Elliot. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “discontinue travel”; (Fehr, [0063]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 3, the controller is further configured to disable operation of the identification device in response to receiving the stop command for interrupting operation of the actuator in response to receiving the stop command from the patient disposed on the patient support surface (“transport and support vehicle 102 includes a fail-safe control system 300. For example, in an embodiment, the fail-safe control system 300 include one or more fail-safe devices 302 that physically couple the transport and support vehicle.”; [0102]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 2.
Hyde in view of Elliot fails to explicitly teach the one or more voice activation commands includes a fast speed command; and wherein the controller is further configured to control operation of the actuator at a first predetermined rate in response to receiving the fast speed command from the voice actuation interface.
However, Fehr teaches the one or more voice activation commands includes a fast speed command (“some common commands that may be used include: stop, continue travel, return to the last starting point, go faster or slower”; [0023]); and wherein the controller is further configured to control operation of the actuator at a first predetermined rate in response to receiving the fast speed command from the voice actuation interface (“commands can be either audio commands”; [0063], it would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art that the “go faster” audio command for controlling the chair would result in an actuator of the chair moving at a first predetermined rate).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Hyde in view of Elliot by adding the fast command taught by Fehr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “for influencing travel speed”; (Fehr, [0096]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Regarding Claim 6, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 5.
Hyde in view of Elliot fails to explicitly teach the one or more voice activation commands includes a slow speed command; wherein the controller is further configured to control operation of the actuator at a second predetermined rate in response to receiving the slow speed command from the voice actuation interface; and wherein the second predetermined rate is slower than the first predetermined rate.
However, Fehr teaches the one or more voice activation commands includes a slow speed command (“some common commands that may be used include: stop, continue travel, return to the last starting point, go faster or slower”; [0023]); wherein the controller is further configured to control operation of the actuator at a second predetermined rate in response to receiving the slow speed command from the voice actuation interface; and wherein the second predetermined rate is slower than the first predetermined rate (“commands can be either audio commands”; [0063], it would be obvious to an ordinary person skilled in the art that the “go slower” audio command for controlling the chair would result in an actuator of the chair moving at a second predetermined rate, slower than the first predetermined rate).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Hyde in view of Elliot by adding the slow command taught by Fehr. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for “for influencing travel speed”; (Fehr, [0096]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde (US 20140090171 A1) in view of Elliot (US 20080172789 A1), further in view Clough (US 20140169795).
Regarding Claim 8, Hyde, as modified, teaches the patient support system (transport and support vehicle 102) of claim 7.
Hyde in view of Elliot fails to explicitly teach the voice activation enabling device is located on a portable electronic device configured for use by a caregiver.
However, Clough teaches voice activation enabling device is located on a portable electronic device configured for use by a caregiver (“a wireless mobile device controls at least one controllable electrical device from audio speech”; [0005]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have modified the invention of Hyde in view of Elliot by adding the portable electronic device taught by Clough. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to “provide a convenient means to control an electronic device, such as an electrically-controlled patient lifting device”; (Clough, [0085]). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the modification were predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Rejections of claims 2-20, which depend on claim 1, are maintained
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE SAMUEL GINES whose telephone number is (571)270-0968. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, 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.
/GEORGE SAMUEL GINES/Examiner, Art Unit 3673
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673