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 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 9/16/2024 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims state: “wherein the controller further configured…” which should likely be amended to include “wherein the controller is further configured” for improved grammatical effect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 19 are considered unclear because the term “patient safety zone” is not well enough defined in the claim and the metes and bounds of the “safety zone” are indeterminable. In claims 1 and 19, the patient safety zone is only defined as “spaced from the charging interface” which could reasonably include the entire room/location in which the patient support is located. While the specification and drawings schematically define a patient safety zone (188) and are read in light of the claims, a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not import this information. For purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the “safety zone” as being anywhere on the mattress of the patient support.
Claim 19 further states: “a charging interface coupled to the support structure and being operable between:” then further lists three “charge states” (first, second, third). Between the first and second charge states there is an “AND” however between the second and third charge states, no linking operator is present. The examiner is unclear whether operation of the charging interface is possible between all three states (independent of one another), or the charging interfaces only allows alternative operation between the [first and second states] OR the [first and third states] in isolation. In other words, can the charging interface also be operable between the second and the third state? For purposes of examination the examiner assumes there is an “OR” between second and third states as claimed.
Claims 2-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (claim 1 and claim 19).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 10-12, 15, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0015276 to Bhimavarapu et al. (hereinafter Bhimavarapu).
Regarding claim 1, Bhimavarapu teaches: A patient support apparatus (see Fig. 1, patient support apparatus 20) comprising:
a support structure (see Fig. 1, frame 28, siderails 36) including a patient support deck defining a patient support surface (see Fig. 1, deck 30);
a charging interface (see Fig. 1-3, charging interface 50 with primary module 54, see also Fig. 7-9 for examples of wireless chargers with coils) coupled to the support structure (see para [0041] and shown in Fig. 2 as coupled to siderail 36A) and being operable between:
a first charge state for charging portable electronic devices where the charging interface generates an electromagnetic field (see para [0054]), and
a second charge state where the charging interface at least partially limits generation of the electromagnetic field (see para [0059]: “controller 74 automatically terminates power to coil 62” in view of patent exit);
a sensor system (see Fig. 4, exit detection system 82 including force sensors 84) coupled to the support structure to generate data representing changes in patient position on the support structure relative to a patient safety zone defined spaced from the charging interface (see para [0057-0059], the examiner interprets the surface area of the deck/mattress as the “patient safety zone” which is spaced apart from charging interface 50 on siderail 36A); and
a controller (see Fig. 4, controller 74) disposed in communication with the sensor system and the charging interface (see Fig. 4, controller 72 is linked to 50 and 82) and configured to change operation of the charging interface from the first charge state to the second charge state in response to the data generated by the sensor system indicating a sensed patient position outside the patient safety zone to at least partially reduce the electromagnetic field based on the operation changes of the charging interface between the first charge state and the second charge state different from the first charge state (see para [0059]: controller can terminate power to coil 62 upon detection of a patient’s absence from the deck 30).
Regarding claim 2, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the sensor system includes a plurality of load cells (see para [0057]: “force sensors 84 are load cells”) arranged to determine weight applied to the patient support surface (see claim 1: “detect weight applied to the patient support surface”); wherein the sensor system is further configured to monitor patient position based at least partially on an amount of weight applied to the patient support surface determined with the plurality of load cells and determine the sensed patient position based on the patient monitoring (see para [0057-0059]); and wherein the controller is further configured to change operation of the charging interface in response to the sensed patient position as determined with the plurality of load cells (see para [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the sensor system includes a plurality of load cells (see para [0057]: “force sensors 84 are load cells”) arranged to determine weight applied to the patient support surface (see claim 1: “detect weight applied to the patient support surface”); and wherein the controller is further configured to define the patient safety zone based at least partially on an amount of weight applied to the patient support surface determined with the plurality of load cells (see para [0057-0059]).
Regarding claim 4, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the sensor system includes a proximity sensor in communication with the controller to monitor patient position relative to the patient support surface (see para [0058]: “Still other manners of detecting the presence and absence of a patient may be used, including ones that use sensors other than force sensors (such as, but not limited to, image sensors (thermal and visible light), vital sign sensors, pressure sensors, temperature sensors, etc.” the examiner interprets at least an image sensor reading on a proximity sensor); wherein the sensed patient position is based at least partially on data generated by the proximity sensor; and wherein the controller is further configured to change operation of the charging interface from the first charge state to the second charge state in response to the sensed patient position determined with the proximity sensor (see para [0058-0059]).
Regarding claim 6, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the sensor system includes one or more load cells, an optical sensor, and a camera (see para [0058] which describes other sensors that may be used in conjunction including image sensors [e.g. cameras]).
Regarding claim 7, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the controller is configured to continue operation of the charging interface in the first charge state based on the sensed patient position being within the patient safety zone as determined by the sensor system (see para [0057-0059]: “controller 74 resumes suppling power to coils 62 when the patient returns”).
Regarding claim 10, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: further comprising a user interface arranged for user engagement (see Fig. 4, user interface 40 or 76, noting in para [0051]: “Switch 78 and/or the additional switch may also or alternatively be positioned on user interface 40 of patient support apparatus 20”); wherein the controller is further configured to determine a patient safety distance between the sensed patient position and a periphery of the patient safety zone wherein the controller changes the operation of the charging interface to at least partially limit generation of the electromagnetic field based on the patient safety distance (see para [0057-0059], the examiner interprets the surface area of the deck/mattress as the “patient safety zone” which is spaced apart from charging interface 50 on siderail 36A); and wherein at least one of the patient safety distance and the periphery of the patient safety zone is adjustable via the user interface (see para [0052]: switch and sensor can both be modified by control panel or user interface 40, the examiner interprets the on/off binary capability to be at least an example of “adjustable”).
Regarding claim 11, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: further comprising a user interface arranged for user engagement (see Fig. 4, user interface 40 or 76, noting in para [0051]: “Switch 78 and/or the additional switch may also or alternatively be positioned on user interface 40 of patient support apparatus 20”); and wherein the patient safety zone is adjustable via the user interface (see para [0052]: switch and sensor can both be modified by control panel or user interface 40, the examiner interprets the on/off binary capability to be at least an example of “adjustable”).
Regarding claim 12, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: further comprising a user interface configured to receive input from a user (see Fig. 4, user interface 40, noting in para [0051]: “Switch 78 and/or the additional switch may also or alternatively be positioned on user interface 40 of patient support apparatus 20”), the user interface comprising a screen coupled to the support structure (see para [0039]: “may be a touchscreen”), the screen being configured to display visual content related to the patient (see para [0039]), and an input device to generate an input signal in response to receiving user input (see para [0039]: at least switch 78); and wherein the input device is in communication with the controller (see Fig. 4), the controller being configured to change operation of the charging interface in response to receiving the input signal from the input device (see para [0051-0052]).
Regarding claim 15, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches the following: wherein the controller further configured to issue an alert in response to a change in operation of the charging interface based on the sensed patient position being outside of the patient safety zone (see para [0057]: “In general, exit detection system 82—when armed via a user interface of patient support apparatus 20, such as a user interface 40 (FIG. 1)—determines when an occupant of patient support apparatus 20 has left, or is likely to leave, patient support apparatus 20, and issues an alert and/or notification to appropriate personnel so that proper steps can be taken in response to the occupant's departure (or imminent departure) in a timely fashion”).
Regarding claim 16, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches the following: wherein the controller further configured to issue an alert in response to the data generated by the sensor system corresponding to predetermined changes in the patient position relative to the patient safety zone (see para [0057] as above).
Regarding claim 19, Bhimavarapu teaches: A patient support apparatus (see Fig. 1, patient support apparatus 20) comprising:
a support structure (see Fig. 1, frame 28, siderails 36) including a patient support deck defining a patient support surface (see Fig. 1, deck 30);
a charging interface (see Fig. 1-3, charging interface 50 with primary module 54, see also Fig. 7-9 for examples of wireless chargers with coils) coupled to the support structure (see para [0041] and shown in Fig. 2 as coupled to siderail 36A) and being operable between:
a first charge state for charging portable electronic devices where the charging interface generates an electromagnetic field (see para [0054]), and
a second charge state where the charging interface at least partially limits generation of the electromagnetic field (see para [0059]: “controller 74 automatically terminates power to coil 62” in view of patent exit);
a third charge state where the charging interface interrupts generation of the electromagnetic field (see para [0059]: “controller 74 automatically terminates power to coil 62”)
a sensor system (see Fig. 4, exit detection system 82 including force sensors 84) coupled to the support structure to generate data representing changes in patient position on the support structure relative to a patient safety zone defined spaced from the charging interface (see para [0057-0059], the examiner interprets the surface area of the deck/mattress as the “patient safety zone” which is spaced apart from charging interface 50 on siderail 36A); and
a controller (see Fig. 4, controller 74) disposed in communication with the sensor system and the charging interface (see Fig. 4, controller 72 is linked to 50 and 82) and configured to change operation of the charging interface from the first charge state to the third charge state in response to the data generated by the sensor system indicating a sensed patient position outside the patient safety zone to interrupt the electromagnetic field based on the operation changes of the charging interface between the first charge state and the third charge state different from the first charge state (see para [0059]: controller can terminate power to coil 62 upon detection of a patient’s absence from the deck 30).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0015276 to Bhimavarapu in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0253291 to Dixon et al. (hereinafter Dixon).
Regarding claim 5, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, however does not explicitly teach the following: wherein the sensor system includes a detector configured for tracking an emitter attachable to the patient to sense positional changes of the patient; and wherein the controller is further configured to change operation of the charging interface in response to positional changes of the patient as determined with the detector.
Dixon teaches: wherein the sensor system includes a detector configured for tracking an emitter attachable to the patient (see para [0042] or Fig. 5-7, sensing device 518) to sense positional changes of the patient; and wherein the controller is further configured to change operation of the charging interface in response to positional changes of the patient as determined with the detector (see para [0040]: “Likewise, if the control unit 510 infers from the absence of vital signs data that the patient has exited the patient support apparatus 100, the control unit 510 may terminate or suspend a bed feature or function that was previously in use”).
Bhimavarapu and Dixon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of accessories for patient supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Bhimavarapu with these aforementioned teachings of Dixon in order to apply a patient attachable tracker/sensor as taught by Dixon to the existing sensor/controller system of Bhimavarapu with a reasonable expectation of success to issue an alert to healthcare personnel of a patient status or bed exit (see Dixon, para [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Bhimavarapu teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the controller is configured to change operation of the charging interface to a third charge state where the charging interface interrupts generation of the electromagnetic field (see para [0059]: “controller 74 automatically terminates power to coil 62”).
Bhimavarapu does not teach: wherein the controller is further configured to evaluate patient data relative to a predetermined patient condition; and wherein the controller is configured to change operation of the charging interface to at least one of the second charge state and the third charge state based on the evaluation of the patient data relative to the predetermined patient condition.
Dixon teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to evaluate patient data relative to a predetermined patient condition (see para [0042] or Fig. 5-7, sensing device 518 is used to send patient data to a control unit 510); and wherein the controller is configured to change operation of the charging interface to at least one of the second charge state and the third charge state based on the evaluation of the patient data relative to the predetermined patient condition (see para [0040]: “Likewise, if the control unit 510 infers from the absence of vital signs data that the patient has exited the patient support apparatus 100, the control unit 510 may terminate or suspend a bed feature or function that was previously in use”).
Bhimavarapu and Dixon are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are the same field of accessories for patient supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Bhimavarapu with these aforementioned teachings of Dixon in order to apply a patient attachable tracker/sensor to evaluate patient data as taught by Dixon to the existing sensor/controller system of Bhimavarapu with a reasonable expectation of success to issue an alert to healthcare personnel of a patient status or bed exit (see Dixon, para [0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 13-14, 17-18, and 20 are 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 and obviation any claim objections and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 listed above.
Regarding dependent claims 9, 10, and 20, Bhimavarapu fails to teach or fairly suggest wherein its controller is configured to determine a patient safety distance between the sensed position and the periphery of the patient safety zone and to change a state of the charging interface based the sensed distance.
Regarding dependent claims 13-14, Bhimavarapu fails to teach what is listed above regarding claims 9-10 and 20 in addition to combination with a detector/emitter sensor system. While a detector/emitter system is known from the prior art of Dixon, use in the application claimed was not found in the prior art or found to be combinable with additional cited prior art.
Regarding dependent claim 17, Bhimavarapu does teach a lift system (Fig. 1, 26), however it fails to further teach or fairly suggest wherein the controller is specifically configured to change operation of the charging interface in response to sensed movement of the base of the patient support along a floor surface by a motion sensor.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Bhimavarapu does teach a powered devices (see Fig. 1, siderails 36) and a battery (Fig. 4, power supply 60), however, it does not additionally teach a tether for charging the battery or wherein the controller is configured to change operation of the charging interface in response to detachment of the tether from a main power source.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show patient supports with wireless charging capabilities with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
1/14/2026