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 .
Status of the Claims
The office action is in response to the claims filed on July 20, 2026 for the application filed on December 21, 2023, which is a national stage of International Application No. PCT/US2022/043587 filed on September 15, 2022, which claims benefit of Provisional Application No. 63/356,242 filed on June 28, 2022 and Provisional Application No. 63/245,289 filed on September 17, 2021. Claims 1, 12 – 14, 21 – 22, 34 – 41 and 43 – 47 are currently pending and have been examined as discussed below.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0082542 A1) in view of Crawford (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0345718 A1), Dicks (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0161111 A1), and Bodurka (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0110653 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, Hayes teaches the limitations of representative claim 15 identified in bold as:
A patient support apparatus (Paragraph [0163] of Hayes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a patient support apparatus” reads on the person support apparatus in Hayes (Paragraph [0163]).) comprising:
a support surface adapted to support a patient (Paragraph [0163] of Hayes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a support surface adapted to support a patient” reads on the support surface in Hayes (Paragraph [0163]) of the person support apparatus adapted to support a person thereon.);
a plurality of locator nodes, each locator node including an ultra-wideband transceiver and a location controller, the ultra-wideband transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with a device positioned off-board the patient support apparatus and the location controller adapted to determine a distance between the ultra-wideband transceiver and the device using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the ultra-wideband transceivers (Paragraphs [0020], [0067], [0072], and [0101] of Hayes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a plurality of locator nodes, each locator node including … a location controller, … adapted to wirelessly communicate with a device positioned off-board the patient support apparatus and the location controller adapted to determine a distance” reads on each of the patient support apparatuses and/or medical devices in Hayes (Paragraphs [0067] and [0072]) including a mesh network node having a transceiver and a transceiver controller that allows apparatus to form an ad hoc electrical communications network with one or more other patient support apparatuses and/or one or more medical devices (i.e., a device positioned off-board the patient support apparatus). The nodes in Hayes (Paragraph [0101]) having transceiver controllers may be configured to determine the time it takes for signals (i.e., wireless signals) from other nodes to travel to the node whose destination is being determined, and such time of flight measurements or computations can be used to determine distances between nodes to enable a node to determine its relative location.);
an onboard network coupling together the plurality of locator nodes;
a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the ultra-wideband transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus (Paragraphs [0020], [0067], and [0072] of Hayes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device … and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus” reads on each of the patient support apparatuses and/or medical devices in Hayes (Paragraphs [0020], [0067], and [0072]) including a mesh network node having a transceiver and a transceiver controller that allows apparatus to form an ad hoc electrical communications network. The nodes in Hayes (Paragraph [0101]) having transceiver controllers may be configured to determine the time it takes for signals (i.e., wireless signals) to travel between nodes, and such time of flight measurements or computations can be used to determine distances between the associated nodes to enable a node to determine its relative location. The Office has determined that it was well-known in the art of medical communication networks at the time of filing that the activities of determining distances between nodes and each node’s relative location based on time of flight measurements and computations for signals from other nodes to the destination node reads on the activity of determining a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the ultra-wideband transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus.), the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the onboard network to the plurality of locator nodes, the time synchronization messages adapted to allow each of the location controllers to determine a synchronized time measurement (Paragraphs [0020], [0067], [0072], and [0101] of Hayes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the plurality of locator nodes” reads on each of the mesh network nodes in Hayes (Paragraph [0067]) that are able to communicate with any other nodes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “each of the location controllers” reads on each of the patient support apparatuses and/or medical devices in Hayes (Paragraphs [0067] and [0072]) including a mesh network node having a transceiver and a transceiver controller.).
Hayes does not appear to disclose, but Crawford teaches the limitation of claim 1 identified in bold as “a plurality of locator nodes, each locator node including a ultra-wideband transceiver and a location controller, the ultra-wideband transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with a device positioned off-board the patient support apparatus and the location controller adapted to determine a distance between the ultra-wideband transceiver and the device using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the ultra-wideband transceivers,” and “a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the ultra-wideband transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus, the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the onboard network to the plurality of locator nodes, the time synchronization messages adapted to allow each of the location controllers to determine a synchronized time measurement” (Paragraph [0059] of Dicks. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the ultra-wideband transceivers” reads on the ultra-wideband transceivers in Dicks (Paragraph [0059]) for transmitting medical device data.)
Hayes does not appear to disclose, but Bodurka teaches the limitation of claim 1 identified in bold as “an onboard network coupling together the plurality of locator nodes” and ““a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the ultra-wideband transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus, the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the onboard network to the plurality of locator nodes, the time synchronization messages adapted to allow each of the location controllers to determine a synchronized time measurement” (Paragraph [0084] of Bodurka. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an onboard network coupling together the plurality of locator nodes” reads on the onboard communication network in Bodurka (Paragraph [0084]) \ communicatively coupled each node to each other.)
Hayes does not appear to disclose, but Crawford teaches the limitation of claim 1 identified in bold as “a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the ultra-wideband transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus, the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the onboard network to the plurality of locator nodes, the time synchronization messages adapted to allow each of the location controllers to determine a synchronized time measurement” (Paragraph [0255] of Crawford. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages …, the time synchronization messages adapted to allow each of the location controllers to determine a synchronized time measurement” reads on the calibrating transmitters of Crawford (Paragraph [0255]) transmitting RF signals on a different frequency so that positioning sensors can determine which transmitter emitted a particular RF signal, with the sensors identifying the signals from each of the calibrating transmitters based on the known frequency using time of flight calculation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical communication networks at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Hayes to: include a plurality of locator nodes, each locator node including a ultra-wideband transceiver and a location controller, the ultra-wideband transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with a device positioned off-board the patient support apparatus and the location controller adapted to determine a distance between the ultra-wideband transceiver and the device using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the ultra-wideband transceivers; and include a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the ultra-wideband transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus, the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the onboard network to the plurality of locator nodes, the time synchronization messages adapted to allow each of the location controllers to determine a synchronized time measurement, as taught by Dicks (Paragraph [0059]), in order to provide data to healthcare providers quickly where data must be manually entered by a patient, which can reduce the level of benefit the patient receives from RPM, eliminate the need for a land-line connection (such as phone or VPN) to transmit data, and/or avoid equipment that is physically bulky/heavy and therefore difficult to transport (Paragraph [0014] of Dicks); include an onboard network coupling together the plurality of locator nodes and include a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the ultra-wideband transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus, the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the onboard network to the plurality of locator nodes, the time synchronization messages adapted to allow each of the location controllers to determine a synchronized time measurement, as taught by Bodurka (Paragraph [0084]), in order to avoid the need for communication between the bed and devices via a cable running from the bed to a communications outlet mounted in a headwall of the room, when the structure and/or configuration of the communications outlet may vary from room to room and/or from healthcare facility to healthcare facility (Paragraph [0003] of Bodurka); and include a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the ultra-wideband transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus, the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the onboard network to the plurality of locator nodes, the time synchronization messages adapted to allow each of the location controllers to determine a synchronized time measurement, as taught by Crawford (Paragraphs [0255]) in order to accurately determine the location of the RF transmitter and therefore the surgical instrument with respect to a patient (Paragraph [0008] of Crawford).
Claims 12 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, and Bodurka and as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bhimavarapu (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0374573 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, and Bodurka and as applied to claim 1, teaches the limitation identified in bold as “a transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with the device, and wherein the control system is further adapted to determine if the location of the device meets a threshold condition, to receive identification data from the device, to perform an authentication analysis of the device if the threshold condition is met, and to not perform the authentication analysis of the device if the threshold condition is not met” (Paragraph [0187] of Hayes, [D]evice 444 and person support apparatus 422 are in communication. This communication, in one embodiment, takes place via wireless transceiver 434 of person support apparatus 422 and a transceiver on-board device 444 (not shown) that utilizes the same communication protocol (e.g. WiFi, ZigBee, Bluetooth, etc.). In some such embodiments, communications between person support apparatus 422 and device 444 take place directly. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with the device” reads on the wireless transceiver 434 in Hayes (Paragraph [0187]) of person support apparatus 422 communicating with a transceiver on-board device 444.).
Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, and Bodurka and as applied to claim 1 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Bhimavarapu teaches the limitation in bold “a transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with the device, and wherein the control system further is adapted to determine if the location of the device meets a threshold condition, to receive identification data from the device, to perform an authentication analysis of the device if the threshold condition is met, and to not perform the authentication analysis of the device if the threshold condition is not met” (Paragraph [0038] of Bhimavarapu, As noted above, the access system 100 could be configured to receive certain kinds of input data DI from user interfaces 84 which are not associated with patient support apparatuses 30 or powered devices 86. For example, the user interface 84 could comprise a portable electronic device, such as a mobile phone, computer, tablet, and the like, which is carried and utilized by the user U. Here, input data DI from the portable electronic device could be communicated to the access system 100 to monitor the user U (for example, with motion or location data), and also to authenticate the user's U presence (for example, using the portable electronic device as a token/badge registered with the communication interface 96, such as via Near Field Communication or other types of wireless communication). Thus, it will be appreciated that portable electronic devices, such as the user's U personal mobile phone, can serve as part of, or otherwise cooperate with, the access system 100. The Office has determined that it was well-known in the art of medical communication networks at the time of filing that the range of Near Field Communication (NFC) can be used to transmit signals over distances no more than approximately 20 centimeters, e.g., potentially having a range of only 0 to 5 centimeters, and this NFC range amounts to a threshold within which transmission of data and subsequent analysis of the data (by a device receiving the data) can occur. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the control system further adapted to determine if the location of the device meets a threshold condition, to receive identification data from the device, to perform an authentication analysis of the device if the threshold condition is met, and to not perform the authentication analysis of the device if the threshold condition is not met” reads on the activities in Bhimavarapu (Paragraph [0038]) of: (i) authenticating a user’s presence by using the portable electronic device as a token/badge registered with the communication interface 96, such as via Near Field Communication or other types of wireless communication if the portable electronic device is within the NFC range of the communication interface and (ii) not authenticating the user’s presence by using the portable electronic device as a token/badge registered with the communication interface 96 if the portable electronic device is not within the NFC range of the communication interface.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical communication networks at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Hayes as modified by Crawford to implement the control system is further adapted to determine if the location of the device meets a threshold condition, to receive identification data from the device, to perform an authentication analysis of the device if the threshold condition is met, and to not perform the authentication analysis of the device if the threshold condition is not met, as taught by Bhimavarapu (Paragraph [0038]) in order to ensure that only authorized users are able to access powered device functions, and which affords caregivers and patients with improved usability and functionality in a number of different operating conditions (Paragraph [0006] of Bhimavarapu).
Regarding claim 13, Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, Bodurka, and Bhimavarapu and as applied to claim 12 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver and each of the ultra-wideband transceivers are ultra-wideband transceivers” (Paragraph [0187] of Hayes '542, Regardless of the specific form of device 444, device 444 and person support apparatus 422 are in communication. This communication, in one embodiment, takes place via wireless transceiver 434 of person support apparatus 422 and a transceiver on-board device 444 (not shown) that utilizes the same communication protocol (e.g. ... Bluetooth, etc.)).
Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, Bodurka, and Bhimavarapu and as applied to claim 12 further teaches the limitation in bold “the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver and each of the ultra-wideband transceivers are ultra-wideband transceivers” (Paragraph [0059] of Dicks, The medical device data is transmitted to the intermediary device (130) in the exemplary process depicted in FIG. 1. The data can be transmitted in any suitable manner. In one exemplary embodiment of the present invention, the medical device data is transmitted to the intermediary device using a wired connection, such as an RS-232 serial cable, USB connector, Firewire connector, or other suitable wired connection. The medical device data can also be transmitted to the intermediary device wirelessly using a wireless transmitter. Any suitable method of wireless communication can be used to transmit the medical device data, such as a Bluetooth connection, infrared radiation, Zigbee protocol, Wibree protocol, IEEE 802.15 protocol, IEEE 802.11 protocol, IEEE 802.16 protocol, and/or ultra-wideband (UWB) protocol. If desired, the medical device data could be transmitted to the intermediary device using both a wired and wireless connection, such as to provide a redundant means of communication, for example. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “each of the ultra-wideband transceivers are ultra-wideband transceivers” reads on the activity in Dicks (Paragraph [0059]) of using ultra-wideband (UWB) protocol to transmit the medical device data.).
Regarding claim 14, Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, Bodurka, and Bhimavarapu to claim 13 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the control system is further adapted to determine an authorization level for the device based on the authentication analysis” (Paragraph [0045] of Bhimavarapu, [T]he user control system 104 communicates between the input system 102 and the powered devices 86 to manage users U engaged in providing care to patients P. To this end, in some embodiments, the user control system 104 comprises an authorization module, depicted schematically at 106. The authorization module 106 is configured to access a permission level PL for a user U dictating whether that user U has permission to operate certain powered devices 86 with the input system 102 to perform the function FN. Paragraph [0038] of Bhimavarapu, As noted above, the access system 100 could be configured to receive certain kinds of input data DI from user interfaces 84 which are not associated with patient support apparatuses 30 or powered devices 86. For example, the user interface 84 could comprise a portable electronic device, such as a mobile phone, computer, tablet, and the like, which is carried and utilized by the user U. Here, input data DI from the portable electronic device could be communicated to the access system 100 to monitor the user U (for example, with motion or location data), and also to authenticate the user's U presence (for example, using the portable electronic device as a token/badge registered with the communication interface 96, such as via Near Field Communication or other types of wireless communication). Thus, it will be appreciated that portable electronic devices, such as the user's U personal mobile phone, can serve as part of, or otherwise cooperate with, the access system 100. The Office has determined that it was well-known in the art of medical communication networks at the time of filing that the range of Near Field Communication (NFC) can be used to transmit signals over distances no more than approximately 20 centimeters, e.g., potentially having a range of only 0 to 5 centimeters, and this NFC range amounts to a threshold within which transmission of data and subsequent analysis of the data (by a device receiving the data) can occur. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the control system is further adapted to determine an authorization level for the device based on the authentication analysis” reads on the authorization module 106 of Bhimavarapu (Paragraphs [0038] and [0045]) configured to access a permission level PL for a user U dictating whether that user U has permission to operate certain powered devices 86 with the input system 102 to perform the function FN, based on authenticating a user’s presence by using the portable electronic device as a token/badge registered with the communication interface 96, such as via Near Field Communication or other types of wireless communication if the portable electronic device is within the NFC range of the communication interface.).
Claims 21 – 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, Bodurka, and Bhimavarapu and as applied to claim 14 and further in view of Simons (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0240521 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, Bodurka, and Bhimavarapu and as applied to claim 14 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the control system is adapted to determine if the authorization level is a first or a second level, and if the authorization level is the first level, the control system is adapted to accept data from the device but not transmit any sensor or patient information to the device, and if the authorization level is the second level, the control system is adapted to both accept data from the device and to transmit sensor information, but not patient information, to the device” (Paragraph [0034] of Bhimavarapu, [T]he control system 82 of the patient support apparatus 30 is configured to facilitate operation of one or more powered devices 86 to carry out various functions FN. By way of non-limiting illustration, powered devices 86 may comprise … temperature devices (for example, heated mattresses 52), entertainment devices (for example, television displays or screens), lighting devices, or any other type of powered device 86 suitable for use in connection with patient support apparatuses 30. … [I]t will be appreciated that one or more user interfaces 84 and/or powered devices 86 could be provided external to or separate from the patient support apparatus 30 to carry out various functions FN. Paragraph [0045] of Bhimavarapu, [T]he user control system 104 communicates between the input system 102 and the powered devices 86 to manage users U engaged in providing care to patients P. To this end, in some embodiments, the user control system 104 comprises an authorization module… configured to access a permission level PL for ... permission to operate certain powered devices 86 with the input system 102 to perform the function FN. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the control system” reads on the control system 82 of Bhimavarapu (Paragraphs [0034] and [0045]) communicates between the input system 102 and the powered devices 86 to manage users U engaged in providing care to patients P.).
Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, Bodurka, and Bhimavarapu and as applied to claim 14 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Simons teaches the limitation in bold “the control system is adapted to determine if the authorization level is a first or a second level, and if the authorization level is the first level, the control system is adapted to accept data from the device but not transmit any sensor or patient information to the device, and if the authorization level is the second level, the control system is adapted to both accept data from the device and to transmit sensor information, but not patient information, to the device” (Paragraph [0024] of Simons, The patient has the option of selecting a level of access for of the above-listed parties to the information available about the patient. To this end, each user is assigned a user profile. First, these user profiles identify the particular user as being associated with a certain patient. If the user is associated with multiple patients, the user may be prompted as to about patient about whom they are presently inquiring. Additionally, the user profiles also include access levels. These access levels are stored in an access level database 16. The access levels can be as simple as low medium and high access, where low access users have access to only the most superficial of information, such as dates of hospital stays and visiting hours, while high access users have access to all of the information. These levels can also be tailored to the individual user by the patient or physician, possibly allowing higher levels of access to close family members and friends, while allowing lower access to more distant relatives and casual acquaintances. For instance, a patient may want to allow all users to have access to general materials about his condition, but limit access to his vital sign readings to himself and his physician. Moreover, the patient himself may have limited access, say, being restricted from doctor's notes, as he may read something disturbing and be unnecessarily worried without proper explanation. The Office has determined that one of ordinary skill in the art of medical communication networks that the medium access users have access to more information than low access users and less than high access users. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine if the authorization level is a first or a second level, and if the authorization level is the first level, the control system is adapted to accept data from the device but not transmit any sensor or patient information to the device, and if the authorization level is the second level, the control system is adapted to both accept data from the device and to transmit sensor information, but not patient information, to the device” reads on the low and medium access levels in Simons (Paragraph [0024]) that can be tailored to allow higher levels of access or lower levels of access.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medical communication networks at the time of filing to modify the system and method of Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, Bodurka, and Bhimavarapu and as applied to claim 14 to implement the step of determining if the authorization level is a first or a second level, and if the authorization level is the first level, the control system is adapted to accept data from the device but not transmit any sensor or patient information to the device, and if the authorization level is the second level, the control system is adapted to both accept data from the device and to transmit sensor information, but not patient information, to the device, as taught by Simons (Paragraph [0059]) in order to provide control over access to information about the patient (Paragraph [0017] of Simons).
Regarding claim 22, Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, Bodurka, Bhimavarapu, and Simons and as applied to claim 21 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the control system is further adapted to determine if the authorization level is a third level, and if the authorization level is the third level, the control system is adapted to accept data from the device and to transmit patient information to the device” (Paragraph [0034] of Bhimavarapu, [T]he control system 82 of the patient support apparatus 30 is configured to facilitate operation of one or more powered devices 86 to carry out various functions FN. By way of non-limiting illustration, powered devices 86 may comprise … temperature devices (for example, heated mattresses 52), entertainment devices (for example, television displays or screens), lighting devices, or any other type of powered device 86 suitable for use in connection with patient support apparatuses 30. … [I]t will be appreciated that one or more user interfaces 84 and/or powered devices 86 could be provided external to or separate from the patient support apparatus 30 to carry out various functions FN. Paragraph [0045] of Bhimavarapu, [T]he user control system 104 communicates between the input system 102 and the powered devices 86 to manage users U engaged in providing care to patients P. To this end, in some embodiments, the user control system 104 comprises an authorization module… configured to access a permission level PL for ... permission to operate certain powered devices 86 with the input system 102 to perform the function FN. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the control system” reads on the control system 82 of Bhimavarapu (Paragraphs [0034] and [0045]) communicates between the input system 102 and the powered devices 86 to manage users U engaged in providing care to patients P.).
Hayes in view of Crawford, Dicks, Bodurka, Bhimavarapu, and Simons and as applied to claim 21 further teaches the limitation in bold “the control system is further adapted to determine if the authorization level is a third level, and if the authorization level is the third level, the control system is adapted to accept data from the device and to transmit patient information to the device” (Paragraph [0024] of Simons, The patient has the option of selecting a level of access for of the above-listed parties to the information available about the patient. To this end, each user is assigned a user profile. First, these user profiles identify the particular user as being associated with a certain patient. If the user is associated with multiple patients, the user may be prompted as to about patient about whom they are presently inquiring. Additionally, the user profiles also include access levels. These access levels are stored in an access level database 16. The access levels can be as simple as low medium and high access, where low access users have access to only the most superficial of information, such as dates of hospital stays and visiting hours, while high access users have access to all of the information. These levels can also be tailored to the individual user by the patient or physician, possibly allowing higher levels of access to close family members and friends, while allowing lower access to more distant relatives and casual acquaintances. For instance, a patient may want to allow all users to have access to general materials about his condition, but limit access to his vital sign readings to himself and his physician. Moreover, the patient himself may have limited access, say, being restricted from doctor's notes, as he may read something disturbing and be unnecessarily worried without proper explanation. The Office has determined that one of ordinary skill in the art of medical communication networks that the medium access users have access to more information than low access users and less than high access users. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determine if the authorization level is a third level, and if the authorization level is the third level, the control system is adapted to accept data from the device and to transmit patient information to the device” reads on the high access level in Simons (Paragraph [0024]) allowing high access users to have access to all of the information, with the high access level that can be tailored to allow lower levels of access.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-41 and 43-47 as are allowed.
Regarding the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103, the prior art of record does not appear to disclose the combination of limitations as follows: "wherein the authentication analysis includes the following: receiving a device certificate from the device; transmitting the device certificate to the server via the network transceiver; receiving a validation message from the server indicating whether the device certificate is valid or invalid; establishing a communication channel with the device if the device certificate is valid; and not establishing a communication channel with the device if the device certificate is invalid”, as recited in independent claim 34.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Third Paragraph to Fourth Paragraph on Page 7 of the Amendment filed July 20, 2026) regarding the rejection of claims 1, 12 – 14, 21 – 22, and 34 – 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered aand are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments (Last Paragraph on Page 7 to First Paragraph on Page 10 of the Amendment filed July 20, 2026) regarding the rejections of claims 1, 12 – 14, 21 – 22, and 34 – 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT CAESAR ILAGAN whose telephone number is (703)756-1639. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 6:00pm.
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, Jason B. Dunham, can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/V.C.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/DEVIN C HEIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights