DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Claims 1—10, 12—21 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 01/18/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1—3, 6 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S Patent Application 2013/0219628 A1 to Blanchard (Blanchard).
As per claim 1, Blanchard teaches:
A patient support apparatus (10—Fig.1; para [0053]) comprising:
a support surface adapted to support a patient thereon (12—Fig.1; para [0053]);
an actuator adapted to move a component of the patient support apparatus (88—Fig.20; para [0081]); a control panel including a first motion control (210—Fig.20; para [0081]);
a display (226—Fig.20; para [0081]);
and a controller adapted to switch the first motion control between an active state and a locked state (para [0082]), wherein when the first motion control is in the active state, the controller is adapted to activate the actuator in response to a user pressing on the first motion control (210—Fig.18;para [0081]), and wherein when the actuator is in the locked state, the controller is adapted to not activate the actuator in response to the user pressing on the first motion control (para [0082] in the locked state all controls are locked except stop button);
and wherein the controller is further adapted to display a first lock indicator on the display when the first motion control is in the locked state and the user is not pressing on the first motion control (220—Fig.24B; para [0082]), and wherein the controller is further adapted to display a second lock indicator (226—Fig.24B; para [0082])on the display when the first motion control is in the locked state and the user is pressing on the first motion control (220—Fig.24B; para [0082]).
As per claim 2, Blanchard teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 1 wherein the controller is adapted to display both the first lock indicator and the second lock indicator on the display (220 & 226—Fig.24B; para [0082]) when the first motion control is in the locked state and the user is pressing on the first motion control (210, 220 & 226—Fig.24B; para [0082]: first and second lock indicator 220 & 226 appear next to first motion control 210).
As per claim 3, Blanchard teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 2 wherein one of the first and second lock indicators is a lock symbol (220—Fig.24B; para [0082]).
As per claim 6, Blanchard teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 1 wherein the controller is further adapted to display the first lock indicator adjacent the first motion control, and to display the second lock indicator adjacent the first motion control(210, 220 & 226—Fig.24B; para [0082]: first and second lock indicator 220 & 226 appear next to first motion control 210).
As per claim 7, Blanchard teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a second motion control (200—Fig.24B; para [0072]), wherein the controller is adapted to switch the second motion control between the active state and the locked state (para [0082]), to activate the actuator in a first direction in response to the user pressing on the first motion control (para [0073]), and to activate the actuator in a second and opposite direction in response to the user pressing on the second motion control (para [0082]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2013/0219628 A1 to Blanchard in view of U.S Patent 2018/0369035 A1 to Bhimavarapu et al. (Bhimavarapu hereafter).
As per claim 4, Blanchard teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 3.
Blanchard does not teach wherein the other one of the first and second lock indicators is a circle positioned around a perimeter of the first motion control.
Bhimavarapu teaches: wherein the other one of the first and second lock indicators is a circle positioned around a perimeter of the first motion control (138 & IC1—Fig.15E; para [0110]when movement is no longer possible or limited light ring 138 surrounds inputs is illuminated).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Blanchard (directed to a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion) and Bhimavarapu (directed to support control systems including a circle positioned around a perimeter of the first motion control) and arrived at a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion including a circle positioned around a perimeter of the first motion control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide clear indication that attempted movement is prohibited as taught in Bhimavarapu (para [0110]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2013/0219628 A1 to Blanchard in view of U.S Patent Application 2012/0089419 A1 to Huster et al. (Huster hereafter).
As per claim 5 Blanchard teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1.
Blanchard wherein the controller is further adapted to fade the second lock indicator away after the user stops pressing on the first motion control.
Huster teaches wherein the controller is further adapted to fade the second lock indicator away after the user stops pressing on the first motion control (440—Fig.38; para [0127]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Blanchard (directed to a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion) and Huster (directed to a hospital bed with a graphical user interface having advanced functionality provided with a controller configured to fade an indicator) and arrived at a patient support provided with a graphical user interface having advanced functionality a controller configured to fade an indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to allow the prompt on the user interface to disappear after a desired predetermined amount of time as taught in Huster (para [0127]).
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2013/0219628 A1 to Blanchard in view of U.S Patent Application 2008/0172789 A1 to Elliot et al. (Elliot hereafter).
As per claim 8, Blanchard teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 7.
Blanchard does not teach wherein the controller is further adapted to display a third lock indicator on the display when the second motion control is in the locked state and the user is not pressing on the first motion control, and to display a fourth lock indicator on the display when the second motion control is in the locked state and the user is pressing on the second motion control.
Elliot teaches wherein the controller is further adapted to display a third lock indicator on the display when the second motion control is in the locked state and the user is not pressing on the first motion control (68f—Fig.31C & D; para [0112]), and to display a fourth lock indicator on the display when the second motion control is in the locked state and the user is pressing on the second motion control (68c—Fig.31C & D; para [0112]: indicates whether lockouts apply to entire bed apparatus or patient controls only).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Blanchard (directed to a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion) and Elliot (directed to support control systems including motion customization including a user interface and a controller to limit movement of the actuator) and arrived at a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion including a circle positioned around a perimeter of the first motion control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide clear indication whether the lockouts apply to all the bed controls as indicated in user interface 68d or simply to the patient controls 68c only as taught in Elliot (para [0112]).
As per claim 9, Blanchard teaches:
The patient support apparatus of claim 8.
Blanchard does not teach wherein the controller is adapted to display both the third lock indicator and the fourth lock indicator on the display when the second motion control is in the locked state and the user is pressing on the second motion control.
Elliot teaches wherein the controller is adapted to display both the third lock indicator and the fourth lock indicator on the display when the second motion control is in the locked state and the user is pressing on the second motion control (68f & 68c—Fig.31C & D; para [0112]: indicates whether lockouts apply to entire bed apparatus or patient controls only).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Blanchard (directed to a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion) and Elliot (directed to support control systems including a controller adapted to display both the third lock indicator and the fourth lock indicator on the display when the second motion control is in the locked state and the user is pressing on the second motion control) and arrived at a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion including a circle positioned around a perimeter of the first motion control. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide clear indication whether the lockouts apply to all the bed controls as indicated in user interface 68d or simply to the patient controls 68c only as taught in Elliot (para [0112]).
Claim(s) 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2013/0219628 A1to Blanchard in view of U.S Patent Application 2012/0200514 A1 to Allen (Allen hereafter).
As per claim 10, Blanchard teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 1.
Blanchard does not teach wherein the controller is further adapted to display a lock screen on the display after a period non-use of the control panel.
Allen teaches wherein the controller is further adapted to display a lock screen on the display after a period non-use of the control panel (142—Fig.3; para [0028] & [0031]: display with non-interaction mode display a swipe to unlock screen 200 when period of time elapsed).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Blanchard (directed to a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion) and Allen (directed to support control systems including a controller adapted to display a lock screen on the display after a period non-use of the control panel) and arrived at a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators including a controller adapted to display a lock screen on the display after a period non-use of the control panel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a screen configured to deactivate display screen if screen has not been used to control a function of bed within a threshold amount of time as taught in Allen (para [0028]).
As per claim 12, Blanchard teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 10.
Blanchard does not teach wherein the lock screen includes an unlocking control and the controller is further adapted to not allow the user to navigate to another screen until the user activates the unlock control, and wherein the lock screen includes no controls for controlling any movement of the patient support apparatus.
Allen teaches wherein the lock screen includes an unlocking control and the controller is further adapted to not allow the user to navigate to another screen until the user activates the unlock control (206—Fig.3; para [0031]: display with non-interaction mode display a swipe to unlock screen 200 when period of time elapsed), and wherein the lock screen includes no controls for controlling any movement of the patient support apparatus (142—Fig.3; para [0031]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Blanchard (directed to a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion) and Allen (directed to support control systems including a controller adapted to display a lock screen on the display after a period non-use of the control panel) and arrived at a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators including a controller adapted to display a lock screen on the display after a period non-use of the control panel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a screen configured to deactivate display screen if screen has not been used to control a function of bed within a threshold amount of time as taught in Allen (para [0028]).
Claim(s) 13 & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2013/0219628 A1 to Blanchard in view of U.S Patent Application 2012/0200514 A1 to Allen in view of U.S Patent Application 2019/0384247 A1 to Bhai (Bhai hereafter).
As per claim 13, Blanchard teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 12 further
comprising: a litter frame adapted to support the support surface (12—Fig.1; para [0053]); a tilt angle sensor (para [0012]).
Blanchard does not teach adapted to sense a tilt angle of the litter frame; and wherein the controller is adapted to display a litter frame tilt angle on the lock screen.
Bhai teaches: adapted to sense a tilt angle of the litter frame (26C—Fig.4; para [0050]); and wherein the controller is adapted to display a litter frame tilt angle on the lock screen (26H—Fig.4; para [0050]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Blanchard (directed to a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion) and Allen (directed to support control systems including a controller adapted to display a lock screen on the display after a period non-use of the control panel) and Bhai (directed to support control systems including adapted to sense a tilt angle of the litter frame; and wherein the controller is adapted to display a litter frame tilt angle on the lock screen) and arrived at a patient support provided with a adapted to sense a tilt angle of the litter frame; and wherein the controller is adapted to display a litter frame tilt angle on the lock screen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a screen configured to as taught in Bhai (para [0050]).
As per claim 14, Blanchard teaches: The patient support apparatus of claim 13.
Blanchard does not teach wherein the controller is adapted to display the litter frame tilt angle in a first manner when the litter frame tilt angle is zero degrees and in a second manner different from the first manner when the litter frame tilt angle is not zero degrees.
Bhai teaches: wherein the controller is adapted to display the litter frame tilt angle in a first manner when the litter frame tilt angle is zero degrees (26C—Fig.4; para [0050] & [0024]: 0 degree angle) and in a second manner different from the first manner when the litter frame tilt angle is not zero degrees (26C—Fig.4; para [0050] & [0025]: non zero degree angle).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Blanchard (directed to a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion) and Allen (directed to support control systems including a controller adapted to display a lock screen on the display after a period non-use of the control panel) and Bhai (directed to support control systems including adapted to sense a tilt angle of the litter frame; and wherein the controller is adapted to display a litter frame tilt angle on the lock screen) and arrived at a patient support provided with a adapted to sense a tilt angle of the litter frame; and wherein the controller is adapted to display a litter frame tilt angle on the lock screen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a screen configured to as taught in Bhai (para [0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16—21 are objected to by virtue of dependance upon claim 15.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding dependent claims 15, the closest prior art of record U.S. Patent Application 20130219628 A1 to Blanchard teaches a patient support provided with a display screen and lock indicators configured to stop a first and second control motion. The combination structure present in claim 15 was not found in U.S. Patent Application 2013/0219628 A1 . Specifically, the limitation with respect to a litter frame adapted to support the support surface; a tilt angle sensor adapted to sense a tilt angle of the litter frame; and wherein the controller is adapted to display a litter frame tilt angle on the lock screen wherein the controller is further adapted to display a concealment control adapted to selectively conceal and reveal the litter frame tilt angle.
The teachings of U.S. Patent Application 2008/0172789 A1 to Elliot teaches a patient support with improved control provided with a control screen including lock indicators. However, teachings were silent with respect to a tilt angle sensor adapted to sense a tilt angle of the litter frame; and wherein the controller is adapted to display a litter frame tilt angle on the lock screen wherein the controller is further adapted to display a concealment control adapted to selectively conceal and reveal the litter frame tilt angle.
The teaching of U.S. Patent Application 2012/0089419 to Huster teaches a screen provided with a “Disabled” and “Enabled” indication and a highlighting field that fades and disappears after a threshold of time. While Huster may suggest concealment of a field, the teachings are silent with respect a tilt angle sensor adapted to sense a tilt angle of the litter frame; and wherein the controller is adapted to display a litter frame tilt angle on the lock screen wherein the controller is further adapted to display a concealment control adapted to selectively conceal and reveal the litter frame tilt angle. Therefor upon exhausting the art, it is concluded by the examiner for those reasons stated above that inconsideration with deficiencies of the prior art, that applicant’s invention would be considered non-obvious in light of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Deborah T Gedeon whose telephone number is (571)272-8863. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 03/12/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673