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 October 31, 2025 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, and 34 – 47 are currently pending and have been examined as discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1, 12 – 14, 21 – 22, and 34 – 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1:
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim as a whole falls within one of the statutory categories of invention (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). See MPEP 2106.03. In the instant application, claims 1, 12 – 14, and 21 – 22 are directed to a patient support apparatus (i.e., a machine); and claims 34 – 47 are directed to a patient support apparatus (i.e., a machine).
While each one of claims 1, 12 – 14, 21 – 22, and 34 – 47 appears to fall within one or more statutory categories, the Office has determined that the full eligibility analysis is required because there is doubt as to whether the applicant is effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception itself. The Office has determined that eligibility of each claim is not self-evident at least because the claims do not recite any computer components whatsoever, and thus each claim as a whole does not appear to clearly improve a technology or computer functionality. To the contrary, each one of the claims as a whole seems to effectively seek coverage for a judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, it has been determined that each one of claims 1, 12 – 14, 21 – 22, and 34 – 47 as a whole falls within one or more statutory categories under Step 1, and the Office proceeds with the full eligibility analysis (the Alice/Mayo test described in MPEP 2106(III)) as discussed below.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong One:
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether each claim is directed to a judicial exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea). See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). After evaluation, it has been determined that claims 1, 12 – 14, 21 – 22, and 34 – 47 recite an abstract idea and thus are directed to a judicial exception.
The abstract idea exception includes three groupings: (i) mathematical concepts, (ii) certain methods of organizing human activities (“CMOHA”), and (iii) mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a). The "mental processes" grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c).
Claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 are determined to be directed to a judicial exception including an abstract idea (i.e., mental process). Regarding independent claims 1 and 34, representative claim 34 recites the mental process identified in bold as:
A patient support apparatus comprising:
a support surface adapted to support a patient;
a plurality of locator nodes, each locator node including a location transceiver and a location controller, the location 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 location transceiver and the device using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the location transceivers;
a transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with the device (This limitation is only in claim 34.);
an embedded network coupling together the plurality of locator nodes (This limitation is only in claim 1.);
a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the location transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival (This limitation in italics is only in claim 1.) to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus based on the distances determined by the location controllers (This limitation in italics is only in claim 34.),
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, wherein the threshold condition includes the location of the device being less than a specific distance away from the patient support apparatus (This limitation is only in claims 12 and 34.),
the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the embedded 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 (This limitation is only in claims 1 and 47.).
The limitations “determine a distance between the location transceiver and the device” in claims 1 and 34, “determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the location transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival” in claim 1, “determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus based on the distances” in claim 34, “determine if the location of the device meets a threshold condition” in claims 12 and 34, “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, wherein the threshold condition includes the location of the device being less than a specific distance away from the patient support apparatus” in claims 12 and 34, and “determine a synchronized time measurement” in claims 1 and 47 amount to the activity of determining a location of a device relative to a patient support apparatus and authenticating the device if it meets a threshold condition, which may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Furthermore, any one or more of these limitations in combination with computer components (i.e., the locator nodes, the location transceiver, the location controller, the device, the control system, the transceiver, etc.) still amount to an abstract idea because no distinction should be made between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). With the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with tools such as pen and paper. The limitations, individually or in combination, are directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform conventional computer processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). Furthermore, the limitation of “using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the location transceivers” represents a transitory form of signal transmission (often referred to as “signals per se”, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave) and is not directed to any of the statutory categories. Thus, these steps, individually or in combination, represent an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 34 are directed to judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Dependent claims 13 – 14, 21 – 22, and 35 – 46 are directed to one or more judicial exceptions (i.e., abstract idea exceptions) under Step 2A, Prong One by presenting additional abstract information in tandem with further details regarding the elements from the associated independent claims 1 and 34 and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as given above) and/or by presenting additional abstract ideas distinct from those in the associated independent claims.
Claims 13 – 14, 21 – 22, and 35 – 46 recite the limitations of “the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver and each of the location transceivers are ultra-wideband transceivers” as recited in claims 13 and 35, “determine an authorization level for the device based on the authentication analysis” as recited in claim 14 and 36, “determine if the authorization level is a first or a second level” as recited in claims 21 and 43, “determine if the authorization level is a third level” as recited in claims 22 and 44, “the identification data includes a device certificate” as recited in claim 37, “the device certificate is received by the patient support apparatus in an encrypted form” as recited in claim 38, “authenticates the device certificate” as recited in claim 39, “encoding communications with the device that are transmitted to the device via the transceiver” as recited in claim 40, “encoding communications with the device that are transmitted to the device via the transceiver” as recited in claim 41, “transmit the device certificate to the remote server as part of the authentication analysis” as recited in claim 42, and “the device is a wall unit affixed to a wall of a healthcare facility” as recited in claim 45, and “the control system is further adapted to transmit the audio signals to the device only if the control system determines from the authentication analysis that the device is an authentic device” as recited in claim 46. These limitations merely define the device (the location of which is being determined via a transceiver) and/or the authentication analysis that is being performed, which are human activities that may be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Thus, claims 13 – 14, 21 – 22, and 35 – 46 amount to an abstract idea in the "mental process" grouping.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, claims 13 – 14, 21 – 22, and 35 – 46 recite judicial exceptions under Step 2A, Prong One.
Eligibility Step 2A, Prong Two:
Under Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether the claims recite any additional limitations individually or in combination that integrate a judicial exception (i.e., the identified abstract ideas) into a practical application. After evaluation, it has been determined that claims 1, 12 – 14, 21 – 22, and 34 – 47 do not recite any additional elements individually or in combination that integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 recite additional limitations beyond the judicial exceptions. Representative claim 34 recites the additional limitations identified in bold as:
A patient support apparatus comprising:
a support surface adapted to support a patient;
a plurality of locator nodes, each locator node including a location transceiver and a location controller, the location 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 location transceiver and the device using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the location transceivers;
a transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with the device; (This limitation is only in claim 34.)
an embedded network coupling together the plurality of locator nodes (This limitation is only in claim 1.);
a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the location transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival (This limitation in italics is only in claim 1.) to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus based on the distances determined by the location controllers (This limitation in italics is only in claim 34.),
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, wherein the threshold condition includes the location of the device being less than a specific distance away from the patient support apparatus (This limitation is only in claims 12 and 34.),
the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the embedded 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 (This limitation is only in claims 1 and 47.).
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), none of the limitations recite any treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition. Thus, after evaluation of this consideration, each one of the claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 as whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(a), claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 recite the additional limitations identified in bold as “a patient support apparatus,” “a support surface,” “a plurality of locator nodes,” “a location transceiver,” “a location controller, the location transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with a device positioned off-board the patient support apparatus,” “a transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with the device,” “a control system… to receive identification data from the device,” and “the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the embedded network to the plurality of locator nodes.” These limitations do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (i.e., determining a location of a device relative to a patient support apparatus and authenticating the device if it meets a threshold condition) is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Thus, it is determined that each one of claims as a whole fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(b), the claims merely add generic computer components to perform conventional computer functions (i.e., the location transceiver, the location controller, the transceiver wirelessly communicating with the device, the control system receiving identification data from the device, and the control system sending time synchronization messages over the embedded network to the locator nodes, etc.). It is important to note that a general purpose computer or generic computer components that apply a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions do not qualify as a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(1). Thus, each one of the claims as whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(c), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. Claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 recite manipulation of data associated with the distance between the device and the patient support apparatus, the location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus, and the authentication of the device. These limitations amount to mere manipulation of basic mathematical constructs, i.e., the paradigmatic abstract idea. Thus, each one of the claims as a whole does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(f), each claim as a whole amounts to mere instructions to apply an abstract idea (i.e., determining a location of a device relative to a patient support apparatus and authenticating the device if it meets a threshold condition). Each claim as a whole implements the abstract idea recited at a high level of generality and is determined to be no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computer components (i.e., including the location transceiver, the location controller, the transceiver wirelessly communicating with the device, the control system receiving identification data from the device, and the control system sending time synchronization messages over the embedded network to the locator nodes). Accordingly, for these additional reasons, each one of claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(g), the additional limitation in bold as “the control system further adapted to… receive identification data from the device” and “a transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with the device” are determined to not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. These limitations are extra-solution activities including the well-known pre-solution activity of data gathering. The limitations are incidental to the primary process and thus merely nominal or tangential additions to the claim. Accordingly, for these additional reasons, claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 do not recite additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(h), each claim as a whole amounts to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. In the instant application, the additional limitations of “a patient support apparatus,” “a support surface,” “a plurality of locator nodes,” “a location transceiver,” “a location controller, the location transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with a device positioned off-board the patient support apparatus,” “a transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with the device,” “a control system… to receive identification data from the device,” and “the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the embedded network to the plurality of locator nodes” do no more than link the abstract idea (i.e., determining a location of a device relative to a patient support apparatus and authenticating the device if it meets a threshold condition) to a particular technological environment, i.e., the field of medical communication networks (as opposed to any other field of communication networks). Thus, the additional limitations fail to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, in view of these considerations, the Office has determined that each one of claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Dependent claims 13 – 14, 21 – 22, and 35 – 46 present additional information in tandem with further details regarding elements from an associated one of independent claims 1 and 34 and are therefore directed to one or more abstract ideas for similar reasons as given Under Step 2A, Prong One above. Claims 13 – 14 and 35 – 36 do not recite any additional limitations beyond the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea). Each one of claims 21 – 22 and 37 – 46 fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two of the full eligibility analysis as follows:
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), none of claims 21 – 22 and 37-46 recite any limitations amounting to treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or a medical condition. Thus, after evaluation of this consideration, each one of the claims 13, 21 – 22, and 35 – 46 as whole does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(a), claims 21 – 22, and 37-46 recite the additional limitations identified in bold as “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,” “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,” “the control system is further adapted to transmit a patient support apparatus certificate to the device,” “the control system is adapted to encrypt the patient support apparatus certificate before sending the patient support apparatus certificate to the device,” “the control system is adapted to share a random session key with the device … and to use the random session key for subsequent communications with the device,” “the control system uses the random session key,” “a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server,” and “a microphone adapted to convert voice signals from a patient onboard the patient support apparatus into audio signals.” These limitations do not “purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field.” It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Thus, it is determined that each of the claims fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(b), the claims merely add generic computer components to perform conventional computer functions (i.e., transmit a patient support apparatus certificate to the device, encrypt the patient support apparatus certificate before sending the patient support apparatus certificate to the device, share a random session key with the device … and to use the random session key for subsequent communications with the device, the control system uses the random session key, a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server, a microphone adapted to convert voice signals from a patient onboard the patient support apparatus into audio signals, etc.). It is important to note that a general purpose computer or generic computer components that apply a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions do not qualify as a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b)(1). Thus, each one of the claims as whole fails to integrate the exception into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(f), each one of the additional limitations in bold above is determined to be mere instructions to apply an abstract idea. These limitations are used to implement the abstract ideas recited at a high level of generality and are determined to be no more than mere instructions to implement the abstract ideas (i.e., CMOHA and mental processes) on generic computer components including the control system, the device, the patient support apparatus certificate, the random session key, the network transceiver, the remote server, the microphone etc.. Accordingly, for these additional reasons, each one of claims 21 – 22, and 37 – 46 as a whole fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the consideration under MPEP 2106.05(h), the additional limitations, individually or in combination, also amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception. In the instant application, the additional limitations of “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,” “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,” “the control system is further adapted to transmit a patient support apparatus certificate to the device,” “the control system is adapted to encrypt the patient support apparatus certificate before sending the patient support apparatus certificate to the device,” “the control system is adapted to share a random session key with the device … and to use the random session key for subsequent communications with the device,” “the control system uses the random session key,” “a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server,” and “a microphone adapted to convert voice signals from a patient onboard the patient support apparatus into audio signals” do no more than link the abstract ideas (i.e., the mental processes and/or CMOHAs identified above) to a particular technological environment, i.e., the field of medical communication networks (as opposed to any other field of communication networks). Thus, each claim as a whole fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, each one of claims 13 – 14, 21 – 22, and 35 – 46 as a whole fails to integrate a judicial exception (i.e., the identified abstract ideas) into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Eligibility Step 2B:
Regarding claims 1, 12, 34, and 47, the Office carries over its identification of the additional elements from Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same additional elements in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over its conclusions from the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c), (e) through (h) in Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B.
Under step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it must be determined whether provide an inventive concept by determining if the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. After evaluation, there is no indication that an additional element or combination of elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 recite limitations that are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” because those limitations simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. The locator nodes including a location transceiver and a location controller using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the location transceivers to determine a distance between the location transceiver and the device is specified at a high level of generality because the claims do not recite how the wireless signal is used to determine the distance. The control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the location transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus based on the distances determined by the location controllers is specified at a high level of generality because the claims do not recite how the time difference of arrival is determined and the claims do not recite how the time difference of arrival is used to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus based on the distances determined by the location controllers. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(I)(A). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, each claim as a whole amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea under MPEP 2106.05(f) and the insignificant pre-solution activity of necessary data gathering (i.e., a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the location transceivers) under MPEP 2106.05(g), which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Evidence that determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus is well-understood, routine an conventional is provided by Hayes (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0082542 A1).
Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements amounts to an inventive concept.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1, 12, 34, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding dependent claims 13 – 14, 21 – 22, and 35 – 46, the Office carries over its identification of the additional limitations from Step 2A, Prong Two so as to apply the same additional elements for the associated claims in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(II). The Office further carries over conclusions from Step 2A, Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) through (c) and (e) through (h) so as to apply the same considerations in Step 2B.
Claims 13 – 14, 21 – 22, and 35 – 46 do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, individually or in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. An examiner should determine that an element (or combination of elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude, based on their expertise in the art, that the element is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). In the instant application, the additional limitations (i.e., transmit a patient support apparatus certificate to the device, encrypt the patient support apparatus certificate before sending the patient support apparatus certificate to the device, share a random session key with the device … and to use the random session key for subsequent communications with the device, the control system uses the random session key, a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server, a microphone adapted to convert voice signals from a patient onboard the patient support apparatus into audio signals, etc.) are so well-known that they are not described in detail in the specification of the instant application. Because the Office has determined that the additional elements, individually or in combination, are not unconventional under MPEP 2106.05(d), the Office cannot find that the additional elements are significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The courts have recognized certain computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The required factual determination must be expressly supported in writing. Appropriate forms of support include one or more of the following: (a) a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); (b) a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in Subsection II of MPEP 2106.05(d) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); (c) a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and (d) a statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). In particular, Subsection II of MPEP 2106.05(d) states that the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: (i) receiving or transmitting data over a network; (ii) performing repetitive calculations; and (iii) analyzing input data to provide output data (e.g., analyzing DNA to provide sequence information or detect allelic variants, Genetic Techs. Ltd., 818 F.3d at 1377; 118 USPQ2d at 1546). The limitations of “receive identification data from the device,” “sending the patient support apparatus certificate to the device,” “send time synchronization messages over the embedded network to the plurality of locator nodes,” “not transmit any sensor or patient information to the device,” “transmit sensor information, but not patient information, to the device,” “transmit patient information to the device,” “transmit a patient support apparatus certificate to the device,” “communications with the device that are transmitted to the device via the transceiver,” “communications with the device that are transmitted to the device via the plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers,” “transmit the device certificate to the remote server,” and “transmit the audio signals to the device” amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and thus well-understood routine conventional activities.
These limitations (i.e., when viewed individually, as a whole, and as an ordered combination) simply amount to the well-understood conventional and routine process of the proneness of an environment to disease transmission. The limitations (i.e., when viewed individually, as a whole, and as an ordered combination) represent insignificant conventional activities well-understood in the art of artificial intelligence and medical data mining using a computer to determine the proneness of an environment to disease transmission and is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the dependent claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of:
A) Generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that serve to merely link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. transmit a patient support apparatus certificate to the device, encrypt the patient support apparatus certificate before sending the patient support apparatus certificate to the device, share a random session key with the device … and to use the random session key for subsequent communications with the device, the control system uses the random session key, a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server, a microphone adapted to convert voice signals from a patient onboard the patient support apparatus into audio signals, etc.).
B) Generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. determining, analyzing, encoding, encrypting, converting, authenticating, and grouping).
Accordingly, claims 13 – 14, 21 – 22, and 35 – 46 do not include additional elements that, individually or in an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., one or more additional elements, individually or in combination with any other limitation, are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.
Therefore, claims 1, 12 – 14, 21 – 22, and 34 – 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-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 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).
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 a location transceiver and a location controller, the location 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 location transceiver and the device using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the location 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 transceiver and a location controller, the location 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 location transceiver and the device using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the location transceivers” 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 (i.e., each locator node having a location transceiver and a location 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., the device). 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 embedded network coupling together the plurality of locator nodes (Paragraph [0067] of Hayes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an embedded network coupling together the plurality of locator nodes” reads on each of the mesh network in Hayes (Paragraph [0067]) formed by mesh network nodes that are able to communicate with any other nodes on other apparatuses or medical devices that are within communication range.);
a control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the location 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 to each of the location transceivers 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 (i.e., each locator node having a location transceiver and a location 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., the device). 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 (i.e., the patient support apparatus) to travel to the node (i.e., the medical device) 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 (i.e., determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the location transceivers and to use the time difference of arrival to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus). 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 location 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 embedded 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 embedded network to the plurality of locator nodes” reads on each of the mesh network in Hayes (Paragraph [0067]) formed by mesh network nodes that are able to communicate with any other nodes on other apparatuses or medical devices that are within communication range. 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 control system adapted to determine a time difference of arrival of the wireless signal transmitted from the device to each of the location 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 embedded 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 implement the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the embedded 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).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes as modified by Crawford and applied to claim 1 and further in view of Bhimavarapu (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0374573 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Hayes as modified by Crawford and 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 as modified by Crawford and 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).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes as modified by Crawford and Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 12 and further in view of Dicks (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0161111 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Hayes as modified by Crawford and Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 12 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver and each of the location 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 as modified by Crawford and Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 12 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Dicks teaches the limitation in bold “the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver and each of the location 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 location 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.).
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 and Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 12 to implement the location transceivers comprising ultra-wideband transceivers, as taught by Dicks (Paragraph [0059]) in order to quickly, easily, and effectively relay information to a heath care provider for review and analysis (Paragraph [0013] of Dicks).
Regarding claim 14, Hayes as modified by Crawford, Bhimavarapu, and Dicks and applied 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 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes as modified by Crawford, Bhimavarapu, and Dicks and applied to claim 14 and further in view of Simons (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0240521 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Hayes as modified by Crawford, Bhimavarapu, and Dicks and 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 as modified by Crawford, Bhimavarapu, and Dicks and 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 as modified by Crawford, Bhimavarapu, and Dicks and 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 as modified by Crawford, Bhimavarapu, and Dicks and 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 as modified by Crawford, Bhimavarapu, and Dicks and applied to claim 21 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Simons 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.).
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, Bhimavarapu, and Dicks and applied to claim 21 to implement the step of determining 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, as taught by Simons (Paragraph [0059]) in order to provide control over access to information about the patient (Paragraph [0017] of Simons).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu.
Regarding claim 34, Hayes teaches the limitation 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 a location transceiver and a location controller, the location 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 location transceiver and the device using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the location 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 transceiver and a location controller, the location 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 location transceiver and the device using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the location transceivers” 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 (i.e., each locator node having a location transceiver and a location 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., the device). 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.);
a transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with the device (Paragraph [0187] of Hayes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a transceiver adapted to wirelessly communicate with the device” reads on the wireless transceiver of person support apparatus in Hayes (Paragraph [0187]) communicating with a transceiver on-board device.);
a control system adapted to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus based on the distances determined by the location controllers, 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, wherein the threshold condition includes the location of the device being less than a specific distance away from the patient support apparatus (In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a control system adapted to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus based on the distances determined by the location controllers” reads on the mesh network nodes 84 of Hayes (Paragraphs [0067], [0072], and [0101]) each having a transceiver 64 and a transceiver controller 58 and the nodes 84 being equipped to determine location using trilateration or multilateration techniques.)
Hayes does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Bhimavarapu teaches the limitation in bold “a control system adapted to determine a location of the device relative to the patient support apparatus based on the distances determined by the location controllers, 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, wherein the threshold condition includes the location of the device being less than a specific distance away from the patient support apparatus” (Paragraph [0038] of Bhimavarapu. 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 (i.e., no more than approximately 20 centimeters, e.g., potentially having a range of only 0 to 5 centimeters) 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 (i.e., no more than approximately 20 centimeters, e.g., potentially having a range of only 0 to 5 centimeters).).
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 implement 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, 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 45, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 34 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the device is a wall unit affixed to a wall of a healthcare facility” (Paragraph [0044] of Bhimavarapu, It will be appreciated that the access system 100 described herein can also be used in connection with powered devices 86 which are remote from the patient support apparatus 30. Put differently, certain powered devices 86 in communication with the access system 100 do not necessarily form a part of any patient support apparatus 30. By way of non-limiting example, powered devices 86 could be realized as powered tools, instrumentation, terminals, communication systems, alarm and/or security systems, tracking systems, electronic locks, or any other suitable type of powered device 86 used in connection with providing care to patients P. As depicted in FIG. 5, powered devices 86 can be configured in different ways, can employ dedicated user interfaces 84, and can be implemented with or without discrete sensors 98. Furthermore, it will be appreciated that the access system 100 could comprise user interfaces 84 and/or sensors 98 that are separate from any of the patient support apparatuses 30 and/or powered devices 86. By way of non-limiting example, wall-mounted sensors 98, such as cameras, could be provided for monitoring users U. Other arrangements of the input system 102 are contemplated. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the device is a wall unit affixed to a wall of a healthcare facility” reads on the wall-mounted sensors 98 of Bhimavarapu (Paragraph [0044] , such as cameras, for monitoring users U.).
Regarding claim 46, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 45 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “a microphone adapted to convert voice signals from a patient onboard the patient support apparatus into audio signals, wherein the control system is further adapted to transmit the audio signals to the device only if the control system determines from the authentication analysis that the device is an authentic device” (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. Paragraph [0040] of Bhimavarapu, As noted above, input data DI could be received or generated by the input system 102 from different types of sensors 98. Here, sensors 98 can be configured so as to be responsive to changes in any measurable variable. By way of non-limiting example, the input system 102 could comprise apparatus sensors 98A configured to measure changes in or relating to the position, status, and/or configuration of various components of the patient support apparatus 30, such as with potentiometers, load cells, accelerometers, gyroscopes, hall-effect sensors, limit switches, and the like. Further, the input system 102 could comprise environment sensors 98E configured to measure changes in the environment adjacent to the patient support apparatus 30, such as with thermocouples or thermistors, humidity or moisture sensors, light sensors, microphones or noise sensors, location or positioning sensors, smoke or particulate sensors, odor or smell sensors, and the like. Further still, the input system 102 could comprise patient sensors 98P configured to measure changes associated with the patient's P condition, health, vital signs, position, status, and the like, such as with cardiac or heartrate sensors, breathing sensors, body temperature sensors, fluid or hydration sensors, blood oxygen sensors, weight distribution sensors, movement sensors, visual sensors such as cameras, blood pressure sensors, perspiration sensors, and the like. Similarly, the input system 102 could comprise user sensors 98U configured to measure changes associated with the user's U condition, health, performance, vital signs, sobriety, and the like, with similar or different sensors 98 as the patient sensors 98P noted above. The Office determines that it was well-known in the art of medical communication network at the time of filing that a microphone converts voice signals from a person, e.g., a patient, into audio signals. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a microphone adapted to convert voice signals from a patient onboard the patient support apparatus into audio signals” reads on the microphones or noise sensors of Bhimavarapu (Paragraph [0040]). Furthermore, 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 “wherein the control system is further adapted to transmit the audio signals to the device only if the control system determines from the authentication analysis that the device is an authentic device” reads on the activities in Bhimavarapu (Paragraph [0038]) of: 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 in order to communicate with the communication interface.).
Claims 35 – 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu in view of Dicks.
Regarding claim 35, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 34 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver and each of the location transceivers is an ultra-wideband transceiver” (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 as modified by Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 34 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Dicks teaches the limitation in bold “the transceiver is a Bluetooth transceiver and each of the location 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 location 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.).
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 Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 34 to implement the location transceivers comprising ultra-wideband transceivers, as taught by Dicks (Paragraph [0059]) in order to quickly, easily, and effectively relay information to a heath care provider for review and analysis (Paragraph [0013] of Dicks).
Regarding claim 36, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and Dicks and applied to claim 35, 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 37 – 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and Dicks as applied to claim 35, and further in view of Mondello (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0313872 A1).
Regarding claim 37, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and Dicks and applied to claim 35 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Mondello teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the identification data includes a device certificate, and wherein the control system is further adapted to transmit a patient support apparatus certificate to the device” (Paragraph [0035] of Mondello, FIG. 4 is an illustration of an exchange of authentication data 441, 443 between an apparatus communication component 416 and an external communication component 446. The portion of authentication data 441 transmitted by the apparatus communication component 416 and received by the external communication component 446 can include an apparatus public identification (“Apparatus_ID public) 465, an apparatus identification certificate (“Apparatus_ID cert”) 481, and an apparatus public key (“Apparatus KL2_Public key”) 483. The apparatus public identification 465 can be used to determine an identity of the apparatus and the apparatus identification certificate 481 can be used to verify that the identity of the apparatus is authenticated. The apparatus public key 483 can be used to encrypt data to be sent to the apparatus communication component 416 in order for the apparatus communication component 416 to decrypt the received data using its own private key, as will be described further in association with FIGS. 5-9. Paragraph [0036] of Mondello, The portion of authentication data 443 transmitted by the external communication component 446 and received by the apparatus communication component 416 can include an external public identification (“External_ID public”) 466, an external identification certificate (“External_ID cert”) 482, and an external public key (“External_KL1_Public key”) 484. The external public identification 466 can be used to determine an identity of the external device sending the security data and the external identification certificate 482 can be used to verify that the identity of the external device is authenticated. The external public key 484 can be used to encrypt data to be sent to the external communication component 446 in order for the external communication component 446 to decrypt the received data using its own private key, as will be described further in association with FIGS. 5-9. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the identification data includes a device certificate, and wherein the control system is further adapted to transmit a patient support apparatus certificate to the device” reads on the portion of authentication data 441 (“Apparatus_ID public) 465 of Mondello (Paragraphs [0037] and [0053]) transmitted by the apparatus communication component 416 and received by the external communication component 446 and including an an apparatus public identification (“Apparatus_ID public) 465, an apparatus identification certificate (“Apparatus_ID cert”) 481.).
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 and Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 35 to implement the identification data including a device certificate, and wherein the control system is further adapted to transmit a patient support apparatus certificate to the device, as taught by Mondello (Paragraphs [0037] and [0053]) in order to improve operational efficiency, more closely match with a patient's needs or recommendations of a physician by communication with an external device (Paragraph [0002] of Mondello).
Regarding claim 38, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu, Dicks, and Mondello and applied to claim 37 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the device certificate is received by the patient support apparatus in an encrypted form, and wherein the control system is adapted to encrypt the patient support apparatus certificate before sending the patient support apparatus certificate to the device” (Paragraph [0037] of Mondello, These public keys (apparatus and external) can be used to encrypt data sent to each respective communication component and verify an identity of each and exchange medical data. As an example, as will described further below in association with FIGS. 5-9, the apparatus communication component 416 can encrypt data using the received external public key 484 and send the encrypted data to the external communication component 446. Paragraph [0053] of Mondello, The apparatus public key 783 can be an input (as “data”) into the encryptor 774. The encryptor 774 can generate a result K′ 776 using the inputs of the apparatus private identification 768 and the apparatus public key 783. The apparatus private key 772 and the result K′ 776 can be input into an additional encryptor 778, resulting in output K″ 780. The output K″ 780 is the apparatus certificate (“IDL2 certificate”) 781 transmitted back to the Layer 1 (553 of FIG. 5). The apparatus certificate 781 can provide an ability to verify and/or authenticate an origin of data sent from an apparatus. As an example, data sent from the apparatus communication component can be associated with an identity of the apparatus communication component by verifying the certificate, as will be described further in association with FIG. 8. Further, the apparatus public key (“KL2 public key”) 783 can be transmitted to Layer 1. Therefore, the public identification 765, the certificate 781, and the apparatus public key 783 of the apparatus communication component can be transmitted to Layer 1 of an external communication component. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the device certificate is received by the patient support apparatus in an encrypted form, and wherein the control system is adapted to encrypt the patient support apparatus certificate before sending the patient support apparatus certificate to the device” reads on the encryptor 774 of Mondello (Paragraphs [0037] and [0053]) generating a result K′ 776 using the inputs of the apparatus private identification 768 and the apparatus public key 783, with the apparatus private key 772 and the result K′ 776 being input into an additional encryptor 778, resulting in output K″ 780, which is the apparatus certificate (“IDL2 certificate”) 781 transmitted back to the Layer 1 (553 of FIG. 5). to verify and/or authenticate an origin of data sent from an apparatus.).
Regarding claim 39, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu, Dicks, and Mondello and applied to claim 38 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the control system is adapted to share a random session key with the device if the control system authenticates the device certificate, and to use the random session key for subsequent communications with the device” (Paragraph [0049] of Mondello, Layer 1 653 of an external communication component can include an asymmetric key generator 663. In at least one example, a random number generator (RND) 636 can optionally input a random number into the asymmetric key generator 663. The asymmetric key generator 663 can generate a public key (“KLk public”) 684 (referred to as an external public key) and a private key (“KLK private”) 671 (referred to as an external private key) associated with an external communication component such as external communication component 546 in FIG. 5. The external public key 684 can be an input (as “data”) into the encryptor 673. The encryptor 673 can generate a result K′675 using the inputs of the external private identification 667 and the external public key 684. The external private key 671 and the result K′675 can be input into an additional encryptor 677, resulting in output K″ 679. The output K″ 679 is the external certificate (“IDL1 certificate”) 682 transmitted to the Layer 2 (555 of FIG. 5). The external certificate 682 can provide an ability to verify and/or authenticate an origin of data sent from an external device. As an example, data sent from the external communication component can be associated with an identity of the external communication component by verifying the certificate, as will be described further in association with FIG. 8. Further, the external public key (“KL1 public key”) 684 can be transmitted to Layer 2. Therefore, the public identification 666, the certificate 682, and the external public key 684 of a Layer 1 653 of an external communication component can be transmitted to Layer 2 of an apparatus communication component. Paragraph [0054] of Mondello, In an example, in response to an apparatus communication component receiving a public key from an external communication component, the apparatus communication component can encrypt data to be sent to the external communication component using the external public key. Vice versa, the external communication component can encrypt data to be sent to the apparatus communication component using the apparatus public key. In response to the apparatus communication component receiving data encrypted using the apparatus public key, the apparatus communication component can decrypt the data using its own apparatus private key. Likewise, in response to the external communication component receiving data encrypted using the external public key, the external communication component can decrypt the data using its own external private key. As the apparatus private key is not shared with another device outside the apparatus communication component and the external private key is not shared with another device outside the external communication component, the data sent to the apparatus communication component and the external communication component remains secure. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the control system is adapted to share a random session key with the device if the control system authenticates the device certificate, and to use the random session key for subsequent communications with the device” reads on the apparatus communication component of Mondello (Paragraphs [0049] and [0054]) receiving a public key from an external communication component, such that the apparatus communication component can encrypt data to be sent to the external communication component using the external public key. A random number generator (RND) 636 can optionally input a random number into the asymmetric key generator 663, to generate the public key (“KLk public”) 684. The public key can be used as an input (as “data”) into the encryptor 673 to generate a result K′675 and the external private key 671. The result K′675 can be input into an additional encryptor 677 that results in output K″ 679, which is the external certificate 682 that can provide an ability to verify and/or authenticate an origin of data sent from an external device.).
Regarding claim 40, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu, Dicks, and Mondello and applied to claim 39 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the control system uses the random session key for encoding communications with the device that are transmitted to the device via the transceiver” (Paragraph [0037] of Mondello, These public keys (apparatus and external) can be used to encrypt data sent to each respective communication component and verify an identity of each and exchange medical data. As an example, as will described further below in association with FIGS. 5-9, the apparatus communication component 416 can encrypt data using the received external public key 484 and send the encrypted data to the external communication component 446. Likewise, the external communication component 446 can encrypt data using the received apparatus public key 483 and send the encrypted data to the apparatus communication component 416. Data, such as medical data sent by the external communication component 446 can include patient verification data, external authentication data (verifying the external device's identity), medical device product data, treatment data associated with a patient using the medical apparatus, patient information data, etc. Confirmation of receipt of the medical data can be sent with a digital signature to verify an identity of the medical apparatus 412 and/or the patient associated with it. Paragraph [0053] of Mondello, Layer 2 755 of the apparatus communication component can include an asymmetric key generator 764. In at least one example, a random number generator (RND) 638 can optionally input a random number into the asymmetric key generator 764. The asymmetric key generator 764 can generate a public key (“KLk public”) 783 (referred to as an apparatus public key) and a private key (“KLK private”) 772 (referred to as an apparatus private key) associated with an apparatus communication component such as apparatus communication component 516 in FIG. 5. The apparatus public key 783 can be an input (as “data”) into the encryptor 774. The encryptor 774 can generate a result K′ 776 using the inputs of the apparatus private identification 768 and the apparatus public key 783. The apparatus private key 772 and the result K′ 776 can be input into an additional encryptor 778, resulting in output K″ 780. The output K″ 780 is the apparatus certificate (“IDL2 certificate”) 781 transmitted back to the Layer 1 (553 of FIG. 5). The apparatus certificate 781 can provide an ability to verify and/or authenticate an origin of data sent from an apparatus. As an example, data sent from the apparatus communication component can be associated with an identity of the apparatus communication component by verifying the certificate, as will be described further in association with FIG. 8. Further, the apparatus public key (“KL2 public key”) 783 can be transmitted to Layer 1. Therefore, the public identification 765, the certificate 781, and the apparatus public key 783 of the apparatus communication component can be transmitted to Layer 1 of an external communication component. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the control system uses the random session key for encoding communications with the device that are transmitted to the device via the transceiver” reads on the public key of Mondello (Paragraphs [0037] and [0053]) generated by the asymmetric key generator 764 using a random number from the Random Number Generator (RNG), with the public key being used by the apparatus communication component 416 to encrypt data and send the encrypted data to the external communication component 446.).
Regarding claim 41, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu, Dicks, and Mondello and applied to claim 40 teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the control system is adapted to not use the random session key for encoding communications with the device that are transmitted to the device via the plurality of 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 “the control system is adapted to not use the random session key for encoding communications with the device that are transmitted to the device via the plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers” reads on the medical device data of Dicks (Paragraph [0059]) being transmitted using ultra-wideband (UWB) protocol without using the Random Number Generator (RNG).).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 34, and further in view of Loc’h (WIPO Pub. No. 2006/056667).
Regarding claim 42, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 34 teaches the limitation in bold as “a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server, and wherein the identification data includes a device certificate, and the control system is further adapted to transmit the device certificate to the remote server as part of the authentication analysis” (Paragraph [0163] of Hayes '542, Wireless transceiver 434 communicates wirelessly with one or more wireless access points 436. Wireless access points 436 are in communication with a local area network 438 of the healthcare facility in which person support apparatus 422 is located. Paragraph [0173] of Hayes, Location detection system 520 includes, in addition to those components of location detection system 420, one or more short range locators 442 that communicate with corresponding short range transceivers 440 positioned on person support apparatus 422. One or more short range locators 442 are positioned at fixed and known locations within the facility in which person support apparatus 422 is positioned. Short range locators 442 transmit wireless signals a relatively short distance, and receive wireless signals from transmitters, such as transceiver 440, when those transmitters are within a short distance of locator 442. Paragraph [0174] of Hayes, Person support apparatus 422 and/or a server on network 438 (e.g. processing station 250) determine a location estimate of person support apparatus 422 using a unique identifier that is transmitted by locator 442 to transceiver 440, as well as map data that identifies (by their unique identifier) the location of each locator 442 within the facility. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server” reads on the short range locators 442 in Hayes '542 (Paragraphs [0173] and [0174]) transmitting wireless signals a relatively short distance, and receive wireless signals from transmitters, such as transceiver 440, when those transmitters are within a short distance of locator 442.)
Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 34 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Loc’h teaches the limitation identified in bold as “a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server, and wherein the identification data includes a device certificate, and the control system is further adapted to transmit the device certificate to the remote server as part of the authentication analysis” (Page 4, lines 7-14 of Loc’h, In general, the invention relates to a method of using a public key certificate C2, said certificate being transmitted by a first user UT1 by means of a station to a DCH server, said certificate including suitable attributes to certify the identification information of a user UT2 and to secure a communication between the STA station and the DCH server, characterized in that it comprises the following steps: - a step of creating a certificate (C2) including a set of encrypted attributes, a step of transmitting, from the station (STA) to the decryption server (DCH), said set of encrypted attributes a decryption step, by the decryption server (DCH), of all or part of encrypted attributes of said set, a step of transmitting, from the decryption server (DCH) to the station (STA), all or part of the decrypted attributes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server, and wherein the identification data includes a device certificate the control system is further adapted to transmit the device certificate to the remote server as part of the authentication analysis” reads on the station of Loc’h (Page 4, lines 7-14) transmitting, to the DCH server, the certificate including suitable attributes to certify the identification information of a user UT2 and to secure a communication between the STA station and the DCH server.).
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 Bhimavarapu, to further include a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a remote server, and wherein the identification data includes a device certificate, and the control system is further adapted to transmit the device certificate to the remote server as part of the authentication analysis, as taught by Loc’h (Page 4, lines 7-14), in order to extend the use of certificates to applications requiring sensitive data transfers (Page 2, line 22 of Loc’h).
Claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and Dicks and applied to claim 35, and further in view of Simons.
Regarding claim 43, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and Dicks and applied to claim 35 teaches the limitation 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 as modified by Bhimavarapu and Dicks and applied to claim 35 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 as modified by Bhimavarapu and Dicks and applied to claim 35 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 44, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and Dicks and applied to claim 43 teaches the limitation 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 a 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 as modified by Bhimavarapu and Dicks and applied to claim 43 does not appear to explicitly disclose, but Simons 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 a 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.).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu and applied to claim 34, and further in view of Crawford.
Regarding claim 47, Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu does not appear to disclose, but Crawford teaches the limitation identified in bold as “an embedded network coupling together the plurality of locator nodes” (Paragraph [0067] of Hayes. In the instant application, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “an embedded network coupling together the plurality of locator nodes” reads on each of the mesh network in Hayes (Paragraph [0067]) formed by mesh network nodes that are able to communicate with any other nodes on other apparatuses or medical devices that are within communication range.).
Hayes as modified by Bhimavarapu teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the control system is adapted to send time synchronization messages over the embedded 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 embedded network to the plurality of locator nodes” reads on each of the mesh network in Hayes (Paragraph [0067]) formed by mesh network nodes that are able to communicate with any other nodes on other apparatuses or medical devices that are within communication range. 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 as modified by Bhimavarapu does not appear to disclose, but Crawford teaches the limitation identified in bold as “the control system is adapted to send time synchronization messages over the embedded 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 implement the control system further adapted to send time synchronization messages over the embedded 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 (Paragraph [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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Third Paragraph to Fourth Paragraph on Page 7 of the Amendment filed October 31, 2025) regarding the rejection of claims 1, 12 – 14, 21 – 22, and 34 – 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
In the Amendment (Fourth Paragraph on Page 7), Applicant argued that the limitation of “using a wireless signal transmitted from the device to the location transceivers” cannot be performed by a human, mentally or with tools such as pen and paper. The Office respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.03(I) states that transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as “signals per se”), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave, are not directed to any of the statutory categories.
Applicant's arguments (Last Paragraph on Page 7 to First Paragraph on Page 10 of the Amendment filed October 31, 2025) 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
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 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