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
Claims 17-25, 27, 37-40, 48-51, and 53 are currently pending. Claim 26 is canceled in the Claims filed on November 26, 2025.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner notes that Claims 17-27, 37-40, 48-51, and 53 are not presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. This is because even if the claimed invention of Claims 17-27, 37-40, 48-51, and 53 recites an abstract idea (e.g. the mental process of determining user location and identity, and/or the certain method of organizing human activity of following rules or instructions to determine user location and identity), it nonetheless integrates any abstract idea into a practical application and/or recites significantly more than an abstract idea. Claims 17-27, 37-40, 48-51, and 53 recite 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, e.g. see [00148]-[0149] of the as-filed Specification and Figs. 1, 4, 8, and 12 of the as-filed Drawings, and is not merely a generic computer. That is, the invention recited in Claims 17-27, 37-40, 48-51, and 53 implements any abstract idea with, or in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claims, e.g. 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, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(I). Hence, Claims 17-27, 37-40, 48-51, and 53 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (US 2021/0065885) in view of Miodownik (US 2010/0001838).
Regarding Claim 17, Receveur teaches the following: A patient support apparatus system comprising a patient support apparatus and a server (The system includes a patient support apparatus and a plurality of servers, e.g. see Receveur [0124], [0129]-[0131], [0135], and [0156].), wherein the patient support apparatus comprises:
(a) a support surface adapted to support a patient (The system includes a patient support apparatus including a surface or mattress that support a patient, e.g. see Receveur [0124] and [0156].);
(b) a plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers (The system includes a plurality of equipment locating tags (i.e. transceivers) attached to the patient support apparatus that communicate using ultra-wideband (UWB) signals, e.g. see Receveur [0128], [0192], and [0198].);
(c) a network transceiver adapted to communicate with the server (The support apparatus includes a communication interface (i.e. a network transceiver) that enables the support apparatus to communicate with other components of the system including the various servers, e.g. see Receveur [0152] and [0162].); and
(d) a controller adapted to use radio frequency (RF) communication between the plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers and a badge worn by a user to determine a position of the badge relative to the patient support apparatus (The patient support apparatus includes a controller that enables the functions of the patient support apparatus, e.g. see Receveur [0160] and [0162], wherein the patient support apparatus includes an equipment locating tag (i.e. one of a plurality of UWB transceivers) that is in communications with tags worn by clinicians, e.g. see Receveur [0128], [0162], and [0192], wherein each of the tags may send a radio frequency (RF) signal such as a UWB signal, e.g. see Receveur [0289] and [0295], and wherein the controller is in communications with a proximity sensor included in the patient support apparatus, the proximity sensor in communications with tags to determine a location of caregivers and patients relative to the patient support apparatus, e.g. see Receveur [0162].); to receive a badge identifier from the badge (The caregiver locating tags transmit location IDs to the control circuitry of the patient support apparatus, e.g. see Receveur [0192].); to determine if the badge is positioned inside or outside of a volume of space (The system determines the distance between the tags and a UWB transceiver, e.g. see Receveur [0139].); and to transmit the badge identifier to the server using the network transceiver if the badge is inside the volume of space (The tags transmit the tag ID (i.e. badge identifier) to a real time locating system (RTLS) server only when it is in proximity of the UWB transceiver, e.g. see Receveur [0129].); and
wherein the server is adapted to use the badge identifier to determine an identity of the user associated with the badge before the user has manually associated their identity with the badge (The RTLS server correlates tag IDs (i.e. badge identifiers) with the respective caregivers wearing the tags, e.g. see Receveur [130]. Furthermore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of [0255]-[0257] of the as-filed Specification, “before the user has manually associated their identity with the badge” is interpreted as determining the user identity without the user manually inputting user and badge information into the server. The RTLS server receives information from the tags when a user wearing the badge enters into proximity of transceivers, e.g. see Receveur [0128]-[0129] – that is, the system performs the correlation of the tag ID with the caregivers wearing the tags and the equipment to which the tags are attached in response to the user moving into proximity of a transceiver rather than in response to a user manually inputting the information into the server.).
But Receveur does not teach and Miodownik teaches the following:
wherein the server is further adapted to use a location of the patient support apparatus within a healthcare facility to determine the identity of the user associated with the badge (The system includes fixed equipment, e.g. see Miodownik [0040], [0052]-[0053], and [0073], and an alert server that stores association data, e.g. see Miodownik [0043], wherein the association data includes an association between a patient ID, a caregiver ID (i.e. either of which may be interpreted as an identity of a user associated with the badge), a room ID (i.e. a location) and an equipment ID (i.e. a patient support apparatus within a healthcare facility), e.g. see Miodownik [0065] and [0080]-[0081].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Receveur to incorporate correlating the patient ID and/or the caregiver ID (i.e. the identity of the user) with the room ID (i.e. the location of the patient support apparatus) as taught by Miowdownik in order to properly track a patient’s movements and/or location throughout a healthcare facility, e.g. see Miodownik [0073].
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Receveur and Miodownik teaches the limitations of Claim 17, and Receveur further teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 17 wherein the controller is further adapted to use RF communications between the plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers and a fixed locator to determine a position of the fixed locator relative to the patient support apparatus (Each of the tags may send a radio frequency (RF) signal such as a UWB signal, e.g. see Receveur [0289] and [0295], and the system includes a plurality of UWB transceivers (i.e. fixed locators) that are mounted at fixed locations, e.g. see Receveur [0129], [0134], and [0163], wherein the UWB transceivers are in communication with the caregiver locating tags and the equipment locating tag such that the tags and the UWB transceivers exchange location IDs and the UWB transceivers transmit the location IDs to a real time locating system (RTLS) server, e.g. see Receveur [0129] and [0163].); to receive a locator identifier from the fixed locator (The UWB transceivers transmit a location ID, e.g. see Receveur [0129].); to determine if the patient support apparatus is within a threshold distance of the fixed locator (The system determines the distance between the tags and the UWB transceivers, e.g. see Receveur [0139], wherein the tags include a tag affixed to the patient support apparatus, e.g. see Receveur [0128].); and to transmit the locator identifier to the server if the patient support apparatus is within the threshold distance of the fixed locator (The system determines the distance between the tags and the UWB transceivers, e.g. see Receveur [0139], wherein the tags include a tag affixed to the patient support apparatus, e.g. see Receveur [0128], wherein the tags transmit their location IDs (i.e. locator identifier) to the RTLS server when they are within proximity of the UWB transceivers, e.g. see Receveur [0129].).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Receveur and Miodownik in view of Araki (US 2016/0275282).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Receveur and Miodownik teaches the limitations of Claim 18, but does not teach and Araki teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 17 wherein the server is further configured to transmit the identity of the user to a second server and to automatically log in the user to the second server (The system includes a first and second server, e.g. see Araki [0120], Fig. 8, wherein the first server transmits a successful login attempt for a user to the second server, e.g. see Araki [0123] and [0129], and wherein the second server includes a second authenticator that logs in the user upon detecting that a card ID matches a piece of successful login attempt record information from the first server, e.g. see Araki [0129].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of user authentication to modify the combination of Receveur and Miodownik to incorporate the second server logging in the user based on data received from the first server as taught by Araki in order to reduce the processing load required for each server, e.g. see Araki [0130].
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Receveur Miodownik, and Araki teaches the limitations of Claim 18, and Araki further teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 18 wherein the second server maintains an association between badge identifiers and user identities (The second server stores a priority user list that is extracted from the list of successful login attempt record information transmitted from the first server, e.g. see Araki [0123] and [0129], Fig. 8.).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of user authentication to modify the combination of Receveur and Miodownik to incorporate the second server storing the priority user list as taught by Araki in order to reduce the processing load required for each server, e.g. see Araki [0130].
Claims 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Receveur and Miodownik in view of Hayes (US 2016/0022218).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Receveur and Miodownik teaches the limitations of Claim 17, but does not teach and Hayes teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 17 wherein the patient support apparatus further comprises a first control, wherein the first control performs a first function when activated by the user (The system includes a subsystem that is activated upon an event, for example a brake being activated via a user interface, e.g. see Hayes [0109] and [0114], wherein the subsystem is configured to detect when a patient has exited the patient support apparatus and/or weigh the patient positioned on the patient support apparatus (i.e. either of which may be interpreted as a first control performing a first function), e.g. see Hayes [0113].), and wherein the controller is further adapted to transmit a validation message to the server validating that the first function was performed by the user if the badge is positioned inside the volume of space when the first control is activated (The system receives a confirmation of the patient weight or other event (e.g. the patient entering the patient support apparatus), wherein the patient weight is stored as a weight event in a weight log, and wherein the weight event log is transmitted to a server, e.g. see Hayes [0121]-[0122] and [0131], wherein the system may present a caregiver with a message upon the caregiver entering a patient room and require the caregiver to press a button or touch a display in order to dismiss the message, e.g. see Hayes [0217].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur and Miodownik to incorporate the first function and caregiver validation as taught by Hayes in order to improve the quality of the patient’s time in a health care facility, e.g. see Hayes [0004].
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Hayes teaches the limitations of Claim 20, and Hayes further teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 20 wherein the server is further adapted to transmit validation information to an electronic medical records server in response to receiving the validation message (The system transmits the weight event log entries to a server, wherein the server includes an electronic medical record system, e.g. see Hayes [0131] and [0134].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur and Miodownik to incorporate transmitting the validation message to an electronic medical records server as taught by Hayes in order to improve the quality of the patient’s time in a health care facility, e.g. see Hayes [0004].
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik and Hayes teaches the limitations of Claim 20, and Hayes further teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 20 wherein the first function is one or more of the following: changing a state of an exit detection system onboard the patient support apparatus; measuring a weight of the patient (The system detects a weight event for the patient, e.g. see Hayes [0131].); performing a mattress therapy on the patient; changing a state of a mattress; changing a state of a brake onboard the patient support apparatus; changing a state of a siderail onboard the patient support apparatus; changing a height of the support surface; changing a reminder provided by the controller; zeroing a scale onboard the patient support apparatus; configuring a component onboard the patient support apparatus; changing a setting of the patient support apparatus; changing information stored in the patient support apparatus; or performing maintenance work on the patient support apparatus.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur and Miodownik to incorporate the first function and caregiver validation as taught by Hayes in order to improve the quality of the patient’s time in a health care facility, e.g. see Hayes [0004].
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Receveur and Miodownik teaches the limitations of Claim 17, but does not teach and Hayes teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 17 wherein the patient support apparatus further comprises a first control, wherein the first control performs a first function when activated by the user (The system includes a subsystem that is activated upon an event, for example a brake being activated via a user interface, e.g. see Hayes [0109] and [0114], wherein the subsystem is configured to detect when a patient has exited the patient support apparatus and/or weigh the patient positioned on the patient support apparatus (i.e. either of which may be interpreted as a first control performing a first function), e.g. see Hayes [0113].), and wherein the controller is further adapted to transmit a function identifier to the server if the badge is positioned inside the volume of space when the first control is activated, wherein the function identifier identifies the first function (The system receives a confirmation of the patient weight or other event (e.g. the patient entering the patient support apparatus), wherein the patient weight is stored as a weight event in a weight log (i.e. a function identifier identifying the first function), and wherein the weight event log is transmitted to a server, e.g. see Hayes [0121]-[0122] and [0131], wherein the system may present a caregiver with a message upon the caregiver entering a patient room and require the caregiver to press a button or touch a display in order to dismiss the message, e.g. see Hayes [0217].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur and Miodownik to incorporate transmitting the first function identifier to the server as taught by Hayes in order to improve the quality of the patient’s time in a health care facility, e.g. see Hayes [0004].
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Hayes teaches the limitations of Claim 23, and Hayes further teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 23 wherein the first function is one or more of the following: changing a state of an exit detection system onboard the patient support apparatus; measuring a weight of the patient (The system detects a weight event for the patient, e.g. see Hayes [0131].); performing a mattress therapy on the patient; changing a state of a mattress; changing a state of a brake onboard the patient support apparatus; changing a state of a siderail onboard the patient support apparatus; changing a height of the support surface; changing a reminder provided by the controller; zeroing a scale onboard the patient support apparatus; configuring a component onboard the patient support apparatus; changing a setting of the patient support apparatus; changing information stored in the patient support apparatus; or performing maintenance work on the patient support apparatus.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur and Miodownik to incorporate the first function and caregiver validation as taught by Hayes in order to improve the quality of the patient’s time in a health care facility, e.g. see Hayes [0004].
Claims 27, 37, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Receveur and Miodownik in view of Zerhusen (US 2013/0131870).
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Receveur and Miodownik teaches the limitations of Claim 25, but does not teach and Zerhusen teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 25 wherein the server is adapted to transmit at least a portion of a care plan to the patient support apparatus in response to receiving the badge identifier (The system includes a monitor coupled to a patient bed (i.e. the support apparatus includes the monitor), e.g. see Zerhusen [0178], wherein the system enables a physician to leave at the monitor a message regarding a patient being treated, store the message on a server, and then subsequently display the message on the monitor (i.e. transmit the message to the patient support apparatus) upon the system detecting that a nurse’s badge is approaching the patient, e.g. see Zerhusen [0209], wherein the message may comprise a to-do list including delivery information relating to an ordered medication (i.e. a portion of a care plan), e.g. see Zerhusen [0171].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur and Miodownik to incorporate displaying the message including treatment data upon a user entering a proximity of the patient support apparatus as taught by Zerhusen in order to provide the user with a to-do list of tasks relating to the patient, e.g. see Zerhusen [0171].
Regarding Claim 37, Receveur teaches the following: A patient support apparatus system comprising a patient support apparatus and a server (The system includes a patient support apparatus and a plurality of servers, e.g. see Receveur [0124], [0129]-[0131], [0135], and [0156].), wherein the patient support apparatus comprises:
(a) a support surface adapted to support a patient (The system includes a patient support apparatus including a surface or mattress that support a patient, e.g. see Receveur [0124] and [0156].);
(b) a plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers (The system includes a plurality of equipment locating tags (i.e. transceivers) attached to the patient support apparatus that communicate using ultra-wideband (UWB) signals, e.g. see Receveur [0128], [0192], and [0198].);
(c) a network transceiver adapted to communicate with the server (The support apparatus includes a communication interface (i.e. a network transceiver) that enables the support apparatus to communicate with other components of the system including the various servers, e.g. see Receveur [0152] and [0162].); and
(d) a controller adapted to use radio frequency (RF) communication between the plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers and a badge worn by a user to determine a position of the badge relative to the patient support apparatus (The patient support apparatus includes a controller that enables the functions of the patient support apparatus, e.g. see Receveur [0160] and [0162], wherein the patient support apparatus includes an equipment locating tag (i.e. one of a plurality of UWB transceivers) that is in communications with tags worn by clinicians, e.g. see Receveur [0128], [0162], and [0192], wherein each of the tags may send a radio frequency (RF) signal such as a UWB signal, e.g. see Receveur [0289] and [0295], and wherein the controller is in communications with a proximity sensor included in the patient support apparatus, the proximity sensor in communications with tags to determine a location of caregivers and patients relative to the patient support apparatus, e.g. see Receveur [0162].); to use RF communications between the plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers and a fixed locator to determine a position of the fixed locator relative to the patient support apparatus (The system includes a plurality of UWB transceivers (i.e. fixed locators) that are mounted at fixed locations, e.g. see Receveur [0129], [0134], and [0163], wherein the UWB transceivers are in communication with the caregiver locating tags and the equipment locating tag such that the tags and the UWB transceivers exchange location IDs and the UWB transceivers transmit the location IDs to a real time locating system (RTLS) server, e.g. see Receveur [0129] and [0163].); to receive a badge identifier from the badge (The caregiver locating tags transmit location IDs and tag IDs correlating the tag to the respective caregivers wearing the tags to the control circuitry of the patient support apparatus, e.g. see Receveur [0130] and [0192].); to receive a locator identifier from the fixed locator (The UWB transceivers transmit their location IDs to tags, e.g. see Receveur [0129], wherein the tags may include a tag affixed to the patient support apparatus in communications with the control circuitry, e.g. see Receveur [0128] and [0162].); to determine if the badge is positioned inside or outside of a volume of space (The system determines the distance between the tags and the UWB transceivers, e.g. see Receveur [0139].); to determine if the patient support apparatus is within a threshold distance of the fixed locator (The system determines the distance between the tags and the UWB transceivers, e.g. see Receveur [0139], wherein the tags include a tag affixed to the patient support apparatus, e.g. see Receveur [0128].); to transmit the badge identifier to the server using the network transceiver if the badge is inside the volume of space (The tags transmit the tag ID (i.e. badge identifier) to the RTLS server only when it is in proximity of one of the UWB transceivers, e.g. see Receveur [0129].); and to transmit the locator identifier to the server if the patient support apparatus is within the threshold distance of the fixed locator (The system determines the distance between the tags and the UWB transceivers, e.g. see Receveur [0139], wherein the tags include a tag affixed to the patient support apparatus, e.g. see Receveur [0128], wherein the tags transmit their location IDs (i.e. locator identifier) to the RTLS server when they are within proximity of the UWB transceivers, e.g. see Receveur [0129].).
But Receveur does not teach and Miodownik teaches the following:
wherein the server is adapted to use the locator identifier to determine an identity of the patient (The system includes fixed equipment, e.g. see Miodownik [0040], [0052]-[0053], and [0073], and an alert server that stores association data, e.g. see Miodownik [0043], wherein the association data includes an association between a patient ID (i.e. an identity of the patient) and a room ID and an equipment ID (i.e. either of which may be interpreted as a locator identifier), e.g. see Miodownik [0080]-[0081].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Receveur to incorporate determining the patient ID based on the room ID and/or equipment ID as taught by Miowdownik in order to properly track a patient’s movements and/or location throughout a healthcare facility, e.g. see Miodownik [0073].
But the combination of Receveur and Miodownik does not teach and Zerhusen teaches the following:
wherein the server is adapted to automatically transmit at least a portion of a care plan to the patient support apparatus in response to the badge being inside the volume of space (The system includes a monitor coupled to a patient bed (i.e. the support apparatus includes the monitor), e.g. see Zerhusen [0178], wherein the system enables a physician to leave at the monitor a message regarding a patient being treated, store the message on a server, and then subsequently display the message on the monitor (i.e. transmit the message to the patient support apparatus) upon the system detecting that a nurse’s badge is approaching the patient, e.g. see Zerhusen [0209], wherein the message may comprise a to-do list including delivery information relating to an ordered medication (i.e. a portion of a care plan), e.g. see Zerhusen [0171].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur and Miodownik to incorporate displaying the message including treatment data upon a user entering a proximity of the patient support apparatus as taught by Zerhusen in order to provide the user with a to-do list of tasks relating to the patient, e.g. see Zerhusen [0171].
Regarding Claim 48, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen teaches the limitations of Claim 37, and Miodownik further teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 37 wherein the server is adapted to determine a room identifier in which the patient support apparatus is positioned by using the locator identifier, and to use the room identifier to determine the patient identity (The system includes fixed equipment, e.g. see Miodownik [0040], [0052]-[0053], and [0073], and an alert server that stores association data, e.g. see Miodownik [0043], wherein the association data includes an association between a patient ID (i.e. an identity of the patient), room ID, and an equipment ID, e.g. see Miodownik [0080]-[0081].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur and Zerhusen to incorporate determining the patient ID based on the room ID and equipment ID as taught by Miowdownik in order to properly track a patient’s movements and/or location throughout a healthcare facility, e.g. see Miodownik [0073].
Claims 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen in view of Robinson (US 2017/0004259).
Regarding Claim 38, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen teaches the limitations of Claim 37, and Zerhusen further teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 37 wherein the controller is further adapted to display the at least a portion of the care plan on a display coupled to the patient support apparatus when the badge is positioned within the volume of space (The system includes a monitor coupled to a patient bed (i.e. the support apparatus includes the monitor), e.g. see Zerhusen [0178], wherein the system enables a physician to leave at the monitor a message regarding a patient being treated, store the message on a server, and then subsequently display the message on the monitor upon the system detecting that a nurse’s badge is approaching the patient, e.g. see Zerhusen [0209], wherein the message may comprise a to-do list including delivery information relating to an ordered medication (i.e. a portion of a care plan), e.g. see Zerhusen [0171].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur and Miodownik to incorporate displaying the message including treatment data upon a user entering a proximity of the patient support apparatus as taught by Zerhusen in order to provide the user with a to-do list of tasks relating to the patient, e.g. see Zerhusen [0171].
But the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen does not teach and Robinson teaches the following:
wherein the controller is adapted to automatically cease displaying the at least a portion of the care plan on the display in response to the badge moving outside the volume of space (The system includes a computer located in a patient room and an identification token carried by a caregiver that is used to determine the caregiver location, e.g. see Robinson [0006], wherein the computer includes a display screen that displays information upon the caregiver entering the patient room, and ceases the display of the information when the caregiver leaves the patient room, e.g. see Robinson [0007].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen to incorporate ceasing display of the data when the caregiver leaves the patient room as taught by Robinson in order to increase the efficiency of a healthcare facility, e.g. see Robinson [0004].
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, Zerhusen, and Robinson teaches the limitations of Claim 38, and Receveur and Zerhusen further teach the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 38 wherein the server is further adapted to use the patient identity (The system includes tags for patients, wherein the tags transmit tag IDs correlated to the patients by the RTLS server, e.g. see Receveur [0130] – that is, the system determines patient identity based on the information received from the patient tags.)to determine the at least a portion of the care plan (The to-do list information for the ordered medication (i.e. the portion of the care plan) is for a specific patient prescription (i.e. based on the patient identity), e.g. see Zerhusen [0008], [0080]-[0082], and [0171].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Robinson to incorporate determining the care plan information based on the patient identity as taught by Zerhusen in order to provide the user with a to-do list of tasks relating to the specific patient, e.g. see Zerhusen [0171].
Regarding Claim 40, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, Zerhusen, and Robinson teaches the limitations of Claim 39, and Zerhusen further teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 39 wherein the server is adapted to communicate with an electronic medical records server to determine the at least a portion of the care plan (The displayed to-do list information for the ordered medication (i.e. the portion of the care plan) is for a specific patient prescription, e.g. see Zerhusen [0008], [0080]-[0082], and [0171], wherein the system includes a main server that stores and provides patient information, e.g. see Zerhusen [0005], [0186], and [0211].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Robinson to incorporate determining the care plan information based on patient information retrieved from a server as taught by Zerhusen in order to enable the access to the information at the point of care, e.g. see Zerhusen [0003].
Claims 49-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen in view of Derenne (US 2015/0109442).
Regarding Claim 49, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen teaches the limitations of Claim 37, but does not teach but Derenne teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 37 wherein the controller is further adapted to determine whether the badge identifier belongs a first class of users or a second class of users (The system includes a database that stores identification data for persons including the types of people, for example patients, doctors, and nurses, e.g. see Derenne [0123].) and, if the badge identifier belongs to the first class, the controller is further adapted to automatically issue a first reminder to the user if the badge identifier belongs to the first class and the badge moves outside of the volume of space before a first function on the patient support apparatus has been completed (The system issues an alert (i.e. a first reminder) in response to detecting that a caregiver is leaving a room without performing and/or completing tasks (i.e. functions), e.g. see Derenne [0022], [0026], and [0220].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen to incorporate issuing an alert when it detects a user leaving the room as taught by Derenne in order to keep caregivers apprised of any information about the patient that is relevant to their treatment, recovery, safety, or other items, e.g. see Derenne [0267].
Regarding Claim 50, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, Zerhusen, and Derenne teaches the limitations of Claim 49 and Derenne further teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 49 wherein the first function includes at least one of: zeroing of a scale system onboard the patient support apparatus or plugging a power cord of the patient support apparatus into an electrical outlet (The activities (i.e. functions) that the system can detect that are determinative of the issuance of an alert include detecting if a cord associated with a patient support apparatus is plugged in, e.g. see Derenne [0208], [0213], and [0296]-[0297].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen to incorporate issuing an alert based on a cord being plugged in as taught by Derenne in order to keep caregivers apprised of any information about the patient that is relevant to their treatment, recovery, safety, or other items, e.g. see Derenne [0267].
Regarding Claim 51, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, Zerhusen, and Derenne teaches the limitations of Claim 49 and Derenne further teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 49 the controller is further adapted to automatically issue a second reminder to the user if the badge identifier belongs to the second class and the badge moves outside of the volume of space before a second function of the patient support apparatus has been completed, the second function being different from the first function (The alerts may be issued for a plurality of different tasks, for example performing therapy, visiting the patient, and/or taking a vital sign measurement, being determined to be incomplete when a caregiver is leaving the room, e.g. see Derenne [0022] and [0025]-[0026], wherein the tasks may be defined as tasks to be performed by a caregiver assigned to the patient, e.g. see Derenne [0020].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen to incorporate issuing an alert based on various types of tasks being incomplete as taught by Derenne in order to keep caregivers apprised of any information about the patient that is relevant to their treatment, recovery, safety, or other items, e.g. see Derenne [0267].
Claim 53 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen in view of Wilson (US 2014/0218202).
Regarding Claim 53, the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen teaches the limitations of Claim 37, but does not teach but Wilson teaches the following:
The patient support apparatus system of claim 37 wherein the controller is further adapted to monitor a plurality of conditions of the patient support apparatus (The system includes an event notification system (ENS) that is connected to one or more event generation devices (EGD), wherein the EGD includes hospital bed patient monitoring equipment and wherein an event source includes a hospital bed, e.g. see Wilson [0016].), to determine if any of the conditions are not in a desired state, and to send a message to the server if any of the conditions are not in a desired state (The EGD is configured to transmit an EGD message identifying an event (i.e. a condition not in a desired state) to the ENS, wherein the ENS may be embodied as a network server, e.g. see Wilson [0016].), and wherein the server is adapted to monitor a position of a plurality of badges and, in response to receiving the message, to automatically determine which badge of the plurality of badges is closest to the patient support apparatus and to send a second message to the badge closest to the patient support apparatus (The system includes a real time location (RTL) system that monitors locations of tags attached to medical staff members and equipment and associates the tag locations with physical locations within a hospital, e.g. see Wilson [0017], and compares the tag locations to a threshold distance between the tag locations and the location of the event source (e.g. the hospital bed), and transmits a notification message (i.e. a second message) to staff within a threshold distance of the event source, e.g. see Wilson [0020], wherein the staff may be the closest appropriate staff member to the event, e.g. see Wilson [0028].).
Furthermore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify the combination of Receveur, Miodownik, and Zerhusen to incorporate issuing an alert to the closest staff member as taught by Wilson in order to notify the appropriate staff member who is able to respond to the event, e.g. see Wilson [0014] and [0026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed November 26, 2025, with respect to the rejections of Claims 17-25, 27, 37-40, 48-51, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants allege that Receveur and Miodownik do not teach the feature of determining the identity of a user associated with a badge based on both the badge identifier and the location of a patient support apparatus, e.g. see pgs. 1-2 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
[0130] of Receveur teaches “RTLS server 106 also correlates the tag ID’s with the respective caregivers wearing tags 102 and with the equipment to which tags 102 are attached.” That is, the system determines the ID of a caregiver by correlating the tag IDs for the caregivers with the equipment. Examiner further notes that [0151] of Receveur teaches that the server “determines, based on the tag ID data, whether the caregiver 114 located within zone 116 is among the caregivers assigned to care for the patient 112.” Hence, Receveur teaches identifying a caregiver on the basis of the tag ID and equipment.
However, as shown above, Receveur does not teach further utilizing the location of the patient support apparatus to determine the identity of the user associated with the badge, and Miodownik is cited to teach this feature. [0080]-[0081] of Miodownik teaches that the data elements of a patient ID, a caregiver ID, a room number, and an equipment ID are all associated with one another in the form of a data table.
That is, Receveur teaches associating a caregiver with the tag ID, wherein Miodownik teaches that equipment ID is associated with a patient ID, a caregiver ID, and a location. Hence, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art of healthcare to modify Receveur to incorporate determining the user ID utilizing any of the associated data elements as taught by Miodownik in order to properly track caregiver and patient movements and/or location throughout a healthcare facility, e.g. see Miodownik [0073].
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 17-25, 27, 37-40, 48-51, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681