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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 06/27/2024 has been considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
The term “fixed locator” is described in the Applicant’s specification through their description of locator units 60. The Applicant explains that “Locator units 60 function as fixed locators. That is, locator units 60 communicate with patient support apparatuses 20 and share information with them that allows the location of the patient support apparatuses 20 to be determined.” (Par. [0108]). The Applicant also explains (Fig. 27) that the fixed locators may be wall-mounted or boom-integrated (Par. [0247]). Therefore, the “fixed locator” is a physical component located within the healthcare facility (Par. [0108]).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a controller adapted to … determine a position of the fixed locator relative to the patient support apparatus” in claim 1 (lines 6-8).
“the controller is further adapted to … determine a position of the vital sign sensor relative to the patient support apparatus” in claim 5 (lines 1-3).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Examiner notes that for a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function (MPEP 2181(II)(B)). Evidence of such an algorithm for covering the corresponding structure, material, or acts are found in these locations of the specification:
Par. [0126] – In general, such location determination is carried out by patient support apparatus 20 analyzing wireless signals communicated between itself and locator unit 60 to its position relative to locator unit 60; Figs. 4-5, # 60a, 104, 124; Par. [0133] – Ultra-wideband transceiver 104 (of the locator unit 60a) is adapted to communicate with one or more ultra-wideband transceivers 124 positioned onboard patient support apparatus 20. Transceiver 104 is adapted to determine a distance between itself and patient support apparatus 20. Alternatively, or additionally, transceiver 104 may be adapted to allow each transceiver 124 onboard patient support apparatus 20 to determine its distance from transceiver 104. In some embodiments, transceivers 104 and 124 use time of flight (TOF) computations to determine these distances. In other embodiments, transceivers 104 and 124 may utilize other techniques for determining their distances from each other, either in addition to, or in lieu of, TOF computations. In some embodiments, transceivers 104, 124 may also determine an angle between themselves using angular information derived from antenna arrays positions onboard transceivers 104, 124, or by using other techniques; Par. [0140-0141]; Par. [0144]
Fig. 5, # 140; Par. [0131] – patient support apparatus 20 is configured to automatically determine the location of vital sign sensors 140; Par. [0133]; Par. [0150] – Patient support apparatus 20 is also configured to use UWB transceivers 124 to determine the position of various other devices relative to patient support apparatus 20, such as one or more vital sign sensors 140, one or more UWB display devices 156, and/or a cartridge 142 that has been physically separated from patient support apparatuses 20 (FIG. 5). As will be discussed in greater detail below, controller 132 uses UWB transceivers 124 to determine the relative position of these devices by communicating with one or more respective UWB transceiver that are either built into those devices or attached to a tag that is affixed to those devices. Such UWB transceivers operate in the same manner as UWB transceivers 124 and/or UWB transceiver 104 of locator units 60.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Examiner notes that claims 1-2, 4-19, and 21-22 are not presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. This is because even if the claimed invention of claims 1-2, 4-19, and 21-22 recites an abstract idea (e.g., determine a position of a fixed locator relative to the patient support apparatus and determine whether the fixed locator is positioned within a predetermined volume of space), it nonetheless integrates any abstract idea into a practical application and/or recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites a plurality of structural and functional limitations that are implemented by a patient support apparatus, wherein the patient support apparatus is understood to be embodied as a patient bed, cot, stretcher, recliner, operating table, or any other structure capable of supporting a patient in a healthcare environment (Fig. 1; Par. [0084] of Applicant’s specification), and is not merely a generic computer. That is, the invention recited in claim 1 implements any abstract idea with, or in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)), and/or results in an inventive concept by virtue of reciting significantly more than an abstract idea because it applies an abstract idea with, or by use of a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(I)). Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-19, and 21-22 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 16-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0185221 – parent application for Hayes, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0106476), which is cited on IDS) in view of Mix, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2014/0039351 – cited on IDS). The article “A Guide To The Different Types of Monitor Ports” by PracticallyNetworked.com is relied upon as evidence for claim 11 (please see attached).
Regarding claim 1, Hayes teaches (Figs. 1 and 2, # 20 – patient support apparatus) a patient support apparatus (Par. [0041]; Par. [0049]) comprising:
(Fig. 1, # 30 – patient support deck) a support surface adapted to support a patient (Par. [0041]; Par. [0043] – Patient support deck 30 provides a surface on which a mattress (not shown), or other soft cushion is positionable so that a patient may lie and/or sit thereon);
(Figs. 2-3, # 64 and 66) a first transceiver coupled to a first location on the patient support apparatus;
a second transceiver coupled to a second location on the patient support apparatus;
a third transceiver coupled to a third location on the patient support apparatus (Par. [0049] – It will be understood by those skilled in the art that the use of the terms “first transceiver” and “second transceiver” herein has been done for communicative convenience, and that in no way … are they intended to suggest a limit to the number of transceivers that may be present on a given patient support apparatus 20 (i.e., there could be at least three transceivers); Par. [0059] – patient support apparatus 20 may be modified to include a third or fourth transceiver; Par. [0089] – This information is received via transceivers 64, or by any of the other transceivers positioned on support apparatus 20); and
(Fig. 2, # 58 and 60 – transceiver controllers, 84 – node; Fig. 5, # 100 – stationary modules, i.e., fixed locator, 102 – module transceivers) a controller adapted to use radio frequency (RF) communication between the first, second, and third transceivers and a fixed locator positioned off-board the patient support apparatus to determine a position of the fixed locator relative to the patient support apparatus (Par. [0049]; Par. [0051] – together, first transceiver 64 and first transceiver controller 58 form mesh network node 84; Par. [0081-0084] – some of the patient support apparatuses 20 are able to determine their location within a healthcare facility 98 by way of a location system that utilizes a plurality of stationary modules 100 (i.e., fixed locator) and stationary module transceivers 102. The stationary modules 100 are positioned on walls, ceilings, or in other fixed locations whose absolute positions within the healthcare facility 98 are known; Par. [0085] – the aforementioned triangulation and/or trilateration techniques used with nodes 84 may therefore be used to determine location when a patient support apparatus 20 is not within an operational vicinity of a module 100; transceiver controllers configured to communicate with a plurality of stationary modules (i.e., fixed locator) using RF/wireless communication to determine location of the patient support apparatus within a healthcare facility by way of a location system that utilizes a plurality of stationary modules positioned on walls, ceilings, or in other fixed locations (off-board) whose absolute positions within the healthcare facility 98 are known), the controller further adapted to send data [ … ] if the fixed locator is positioned inside a predetermined volume of space, and to not send the data [ …] if the fixed locator is positioned outside of the predetermined volume of space (Par. [0079-0085] – any such apparatus 20 having a module transceiver 102 incorporated therein will be able to communicate with a fixed module 100 (i.e. fixed locator) when the apparatus is within a relatively close proximity thereto. In general, because the location of modules 100 is known, and because the patient support apparatuses can only communicate with a given module 100 (via transceivers 102) when they are within a close proximity to the given module 100, the very establishment of such communication indicates that the patient support apparatus 20 is in close proximity to a given module 100 whose location is known. This allows the location of a patient support apparatus 20 to be determined. Nodes 84 complement existing location determining systems and/or fill in gaps in those existing location determining systems so that greater location knowledge is achievable within a healthcare facility; Par. [0095-0096]; The patient support apparatus is located using stationary modules (i.e., fixed locator) that are fixed to rooms/walls/ceilings and is configured to send location data when a patient support apparatus is within the room or portion within a room (i.e., predetermined volume of space) and does not send location data when the patient support apparatus is not within proximity to the stationary modules). Hayes does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 1, that is wherein the data, to be sent (or not sent) based on the fixed locator being positioned inside (or outside) the predetermined volume of space, is to be displayed (or not) by a display device positioned off-board the patient support apparatus.
Mix is directed to analogous art, and teaches patient support systems (Par. [0002]). Mix also teaches the limitation of instant claim 1, that is wherein (Fig. 4, # 44, 48 – display screen, 68 – locator device, 70 – locator devices, i.e. stationary fixed locator) the data, to be sent (or not sent) based on the fixed locator being positioned inside (or outside) the predetermined volume of space, is to be displayed (or not) by a display device positioned off-board the patient support apparatus (Par. [0117] – tablet 44 includes a display or display screen 48; Par. [0126] – tablet 44 also communicates with a patient support locator device 68 that is positioned on patient support 36.; Par. [0127] – Locator devices 68 communicate with stationary locator devices 70 that are mounted in fixed locations, such as to a wall, ceiling, or other non-mobile locations; Par. [0128]; Par. [0130] – Once tablet 44 knows its room location, or sufficient information to determine its room location, it may transmit that information to a computer, server, or other remote device. In response, the computer, server, or other remote device may wirelessly transmit data to tablet 44 indicating who the particular patient is that is currently occupying patient support 36. Tablet 44 may then display all of some of this information on display screen 48 so that a caregiver will have access to this patient information).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the patient support system of Hayes by displaying data on a remote medical device based on proximity and location information, as suggested by Mix, for the purpose of enhancing efficiency and reliability in managing patients by enabling caregivers to determine patient related data as mobile patient beds are transferred to different areas within a hospital (see Par. [0130] of Mix).
Therefore, claim 1 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 2, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Hayes also teaches the limitation of instant claim 2, that is wherein the first transceiver, the second transceiver, and the third transceiver are all ultra-wideband transceivers (Par. [0052] – the transceivers of the patient supporting apparatus are configured to use IEEE 802.15.4 protocol (i.e., ultra-wideband)), and wherein the patient support apparatus further includes a memory in which the first location, second location, and third location of the first, second, and third transceivers, respectively, is stored (Par. [0085] – the location information determined by way of nods 84 is stored locally on the respective patient support apparatus 20; Par. [0089] – storage of this information may be in a memory within node 84).
Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 4, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 2, as indicated hereinabove. Hayes also teaches the limitation of instant claim 4, that is wherein (Fig. 2, # 58, 60, 64, 66) the controller is further adapted to use the stored locations of the first, second, and third transceivers to determine whether the fixed locator is positioned inside or outside of the predetermined volume of space (Par. [0052]; Pars. [0081-0084]; Par. [0085] – Nodes 84 therefore complement existing location determining systems and/or fill in gaps in those existing location determining systems so that greater location knowledge—in terms of both coverage throughout the facility and/or in terms of the number of patient support apparatus—is achievable within a healthcare facility. The location information determined by way of nodes 84 is stored locally on the respective patient support apparatus 20 and/or it is forwarded to healthcare network 70 to one or more servers and/or applications running on the network 70.; transceiver controllers configured to communicate with a plurality of stationary modules (i.e., fixed locator) using RF/wireless communication to determine location of the patient support apparatus).
Therefore, claim 4 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 5, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Hayes also teaches the limitation of instant claim 5, that is wherein (Fig. 7, # 84, 110) the controller is further adapted to use RF communication between the first, second, and third transceivers and a vital sign sensor to determine a position of the vital sign sensor relative to the patient support apparatus (Par. [0046]; Par. [0052-0053]; Par. [0055] – first transceiver 64 is configured to communicate with one or more medical devices 110. Such medical device could be a vital sign monitor; Par. [0081-0084]; Par. [0099]; transceiver controllers configured to communicate with a plurality of stationary modules (i.e., fixed locator) using RF/wireless communication to determine location of the patient support apparatus in proximity to a medical device including vital sign monitors).
Therefore, claim 5 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 6, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 5, as indicated hereinabove. Mix, as modified with Hayes, also teaches the limitation of instant claim 6, that is wherein (Fig. 4, # 44, 48 – display screen, 68 – locator device, 70 – locator devices, i.e. stationary fixed locator) the controller is further adapted to include readings from the vital sign sensor within the data to be displayed by the display device if the vital sign sensor is positioned inside the predetermined volume of space, and to not include the readings from the vital sign sensor within the data to be displayed by the display device if the vital sign sensor is positioned outside of the predetermined volume of space (Par. [0117] – tablet 44 includes a display or display screen 48; Par. [0126] – tablet 44 also communicates with a patient support locator device 68 that is positioned on patient support 36.; Par. [0127] – Locator devices 68 communicate with stationary locator devices 70 that are mounted in fixed locations, such as to a wall, ceiling, or other non-mobile locations; Par. [0128]; Par. [0130] – Once tablet 44 knows its room location, or sufficient information to determine its room location, it may transmit that information to a computer, server, or other remote device. In response, the computer, server, or other remote device may wirelessly transmit data to tablet 44 indicating who the particular patient is that is currently occupying patient support 36. Tablet 44 may then display all of some of this information on display screen 48 so that a caregiver will have access to this patient information. The patient information transmitted to tablet 44 may include any relevant patient information, including not only the patient's name, but also any and all medical information about the patient that may be desirably displayed on tablet 44, or otherwise used in conjunction with the operations performed by tablet 44 and/or sensing system 20; Par. [0151] – sensing system 20 can be configured to detect a vital sign of a patient, such as, for example, a heart rate).
Therefore, claim 6 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 7, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 6, as indicated hereinabove. Mix also teaches the limitation of instant claim 7, that is wherein (Fig. 4, # 30 – user interface controller, i.e. display controller, 44, 48) the display device includes a display and a display controller, and wherein the display controller is adapted to display the data on the display (Par. [0115] – user interface controller 30 incorporated inside of a tablet 44; Par. [0117] – user interface 26 is comprised of tablet 44, which includes a display or display screen 48; Par. [0130]).
Therefore, claim 7 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 8, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 7, as indicated hereinabove. Hayes also teaches the limitation of instant claim 8, that is wherein (Fig. 4, # 44) the display device is mounted adjacent a bay of a room within a healthcare facility (Par. [0118] – Tablet 44 in Fig. 4 is supported on a pedestal 50 that includes a boom arm 52 and a bracket 54. Pedestal 50 is configured to be mounted on patient support 36; Par. [0126] – tablet is mounted in a single hospital room or in a section of a hospital room).
Therefore, claim 8 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 9, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 6, as indicated hereinabove. Hayes does not explicitly teach the limitation of instant claim 9, that is wherein the patient support apparatus is further comprising a microphone positioned onboard the patient support apparatus, the microphone adapted to convert sounds of the patient's voice to audio signals, and wherein the controller is further adapted to transmit the audio signals to the fixed locator if the fixed locator is positioned inside the predetermined volume of space, and to not transmit the audio signals to the fixed locator if the fixed locator is positioned outside of the predetermined volume of space.
However, Mix teaches the limitation of instant claim 9, that is wherein (Fig. 8) the patient support apparatus is further comprising a microphone positioned onboard the patient support apparatus, the microphone adapted to convert sounds of the patient's voice to audio signals (Par. [0122] – For example, if a speaker and microphone are included on the tablet, voice communication between a remotely located caregiver and the patient may be effectuated using the wireless transmission of voice packets; Par. [0138]), and wherein the controller is further adapted to transmit the audio signals to the fixed locator if the fixed locator is positioned inside the predetermined volume of space, and to not transmit the audio signals to the fixed locator if the fixed locator is positioned outside of the predetermined volume of space (Par. [0122]; Par. [0126-0128]; Par. [0137]; Par. [0176]; Patient alerts including voice signals received by microphone configured on the patient support device is transmitted between fixed locator device and patient support device when the devices are in close proximity).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the patient support system of Hayes by sending voice data from a microphone based on proximity and location information, as suggested by Mix, for the purpose of enhancing efficiency and reliability in managing patients by enabling caregivers to determine patient related data as mobile patient beds are transferred to different areas within a hospital (see Par. [0130] of Mix). One of ordinary skill in the art would have also desired implementing a microphone in order to provide additional sources for signals to originate and to specifically provide for voice communication (see Par. [0122] and [0137] of Mix).
Therefore, claim 9 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 10, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 9, as indicated hereinabove. Mix also teaches the limitations of instant claim 10, that is wherein (Fig. 4, # 30 – user interface controller, i.e. device controller, 44 – tablet, i.e. display device,) the display device includes a device controller and a video port adapted to receive a video cable adapted to be coupled to a display, and wherein the device controller is adapted, in response to receiving the data to be displayed by the display device, to send the data to be displayed by the display device to the video port (Par. [0109] – In other embodiments, a non-touch screen display may be provided that displays information about sensing system 20 to the caregiver and/or the patient. Such a display screen may include any conventional display technology, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD), a plasma display, a cathode ray tube, or any other suitable display technology.; One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such an LCD, for example, would include a video port receiving a video cable to display information about the sensing system).
Therefore, claim 10 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 11, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 10, as indicated hereinabove. Mix also teaches the limitation of instant claim 11, that is wherein the video port is one of a High-Definition Multimedia Interface (HDMI) connector, a Video Graphics Array (VGA) connector, a DisplayPort (DP) connector, a plurality of Radio Corporation of America (RCA) connectors, or a Digital Visual Interface (DVI) connector (Par. [0109]; It is noted that these are all well-known video ports that would be included on a display, such as a LCD – As evidenced by Practicallynetworked.com, there are 6 main types of monitor ports: VGA, HDMI, DVI, USB-C, DisplayPort, and Thunderbolt).
Therefore, claim 11 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 12, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. further including a vital sign port adapted to receive a plug of a cable from a vital sign sensor adapted to detect a vital sign of the patient, wherein the controller is further adapted to include readings from the vital sign sensor within the data to be displayed by the display device (Par. [0023]; Par. [0052]; Par. [0055]; a medical device configured as a vital sign monitor displays vital signs of patient, wherein the medical device is coupled to the patient support apparatus using associated ports).
Therefore, claim 12 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 16, Hayes, in view of Fix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Hayes also teaches the limitation of instant claim 16, that is wherein (Fig. 5) the controller is adapted to include a room number within the data to be displayed by the display device, the room number corresponding to a room in which the patient support apparatus is currently located (Par. [0078]; the room number where a patient support apparatus is located is indicated to caregiver).
Therefore, claim 16 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 17, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 16, as indicated hereinabove. Hayes also teaches the limitation of instant claim 7, that is wherein the apparatus is further comprising:
a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a server of a local area network of a healthcare facility (Par. [0046]; Par. [0055]; patient data including location of patient support apparatus is communicated between the medical device, patient support apparatus and healthcare network/server (i.e., healthcare facility)); and
wherein the controller is adapted to receive a location ID from the fixed locator (Par. [0052]; Par. [0081-0085]; Par. [0092]; transceiver controllers configured to communicate with a plurality of stationary modules (i.e., fixed locator) using RF/wireless communication to determine location of the patient support apparatus within a healthcare facility, wherein the location includes room number and label (i.e., location ID)), to send the location ID to the server using the network transceiver, and to thereafter receive the room number from the server via the network transceiver (Par. [0046]; Par. [0055]; Patient data including location of patient support apparatus is communicated between the medical device, patient support apparatus, and healthcare network/server (i.e., healthcare facility)).
Therefore, claim 17 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 18, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Hayes also teaches the limitation of instant claim 18, that is wherein the fixed locator is adapted to be mounted at a fixed location within a room of a healthcare facility and to transmit a location ID to the patient support apparatus (Par. [0046]; Par. [0052]; Par. [0055]; Pars. [0081-0084]; transceiver controllers configured to communicate with a plurality of stationary modules to determine location of the patient support apparatus within a healthcare facility by way of a location system that utilizes a plurality of stationary modules positioned on walls, ceilings, or in other fixed locations whose absolute positions within the healthcare facility are known, wherein location data includes room number/label).
Therefore, claim 18 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 19, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Hayes also teaches the limitation of instant claim 19, that is wherein the apparatus is further comprising a local display integrated into the patient support apparatus, wherein the controller is adapted to display a screen on the local display that includes the data to be displayed by the display device (Par. [0018] – a display may be included on the patient support apparatus that displays an identifier of the another patient support apparatus to which the patient information is wirelessly transmitted; Par. [0090-0091] – In some patient support apparatus embodiments, the stored information is displayable on an LCD screen, touchscreen, or other type of display on the patient support apparatus so that caregivers will have visual access to the information).
Therefore, claim 19 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Regarding claim 22, Hayes, in view of Mix, renders obvious the patient support apparatus of claim 1, as indicated hereinabove. Mix also teaches the limitation of instant claim 22, that is wherein the apparatus is further comprising (Fig. 1 and 4, # 26, 44) a user interface adapted to allow a user to control a content of the data to be displayed by the display device (Par. [0107]; Par. [0109]; Par. [0117] – user interface 26 is comprised of tablet 44, which includes a display or display screen 48).
Therefore, claim 22 is unpatentable over Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-15 and 21 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (namely Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.) does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of dependent claim 13 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the vital sign port is integrated into a cartridge adapted to be removed from the patient support apparatus while the plug of the cable from the vital sign sensor remains plugged into the vital sign port.
While Hayes does teach the vital sign sensor and patient support apparatus (Par. [0052]; Par. [0055]; Par. [0081]; transceiver controllers configured to communicate with a plurality of stationary modules using RF/wireless communication to determine location of the patient support apparatus in proximity to a medical device including vital signs monitors to display vital signs of patient), Hayes fails to fairly teach or suggest wherein the vital sign port is integrated into a cartridge adapted to be removed from the patient support apparatus while the plug of the cable from the vital sign sensor remains plugged into the vital sign port. No other prior art reference could be found that teaches or renders obvious the limitations of instant claim 13. Due to their dependency on claim 13, instant claims 14-15 are also considered to contain allowable subject matter.
The prior art of record (namely Hayes, et al. and Mix, et al.) does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of dependent claim 21 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the predetermined volume of space is defined with respect to the patient support apparatus and moves as the patient support apparatus moves.
While Hayes does teach the predetermined volume of space (Par. [0079]; the location of a patient support apparatus is configured to be specified within a room, portion of a room or other generalized area associated with the patient support apparatus), Hayes fails to fairly teach or suggest wherein the predetermined volume of space is defined with respect to the patient support apparatus and moves as the patient support apparatus moves. No other prior art reference could be found that teaches or renders obvious the limitations of instant claim 21.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). Specifically, please see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections hereinabove.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kerr, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2004/0148197)
Torok, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2006/0288095)
Shelton, IV, et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2022/0384011)
Hannah, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,700,230)
Tolmie, et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,092,834)
Liu, et al. (CN113534852)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL TAYLOR HOLTZCLAW whose telephone number is (571)272-6626. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/MICHAEL T. HOLTZCLAW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796