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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 – 135 were originally filed.
In the preliminary amendment dated 6/28/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 21, 35, 42, and 49 have been amended; Claims 8 – 19, 22, 24 – 26, 28 – 33, 36 – 39, 43 – 46, and 51 – 135 have been canceled.
Claims 1 – 7, 20, 21, 23, 27, 34, 35, 40 – 42, and 47 – 50 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 7, 20, 21, 23, 27, 34, 35, 40 – 42, and 47 – 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims, understood as a whole, recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1 – 7, 20, 21, 23, 27, 34, 35, 40 – 42, and 47 – 50) which recite the abstract idea steps of
Claim 1
receive a badge identifier from the badge to determine if the badge is positioned inside or outside of a volume of space and,
if the badge is positioned inside the volume of space, send the badge identifier
determine if the badge is associated with a cleaning worker, and if the badge is associated with a cleaning worker, present a cleaning instructions.
Claim 20
receive a badge identifier from the badge to determine if the badge is positioned inside or outside of a volume of space and,
if the badge is positioned inside the volume of space, send the badge identifier
(i) determine if the badge is associated with a cleaning worker;
(ii) measure a length of time the badge remains inside the volume of space;
(iii) compare the measured length of time to a threshold amount of time; and
(iv) if the measured length of time exceeds the threshold amount of time, determine that the patient support apparatus has been cleaned.
Claim 20
receive a badge identifier from the badge to determine if the badge is positioned inside or outside of a volume of space and,
if the badge is positioned inside the volume of space, send the badge identifier
(i) determine if the badge is associated with a transport worker; and
(ii) if the badge is associated with a transport worker, determine that the patient support apparatus is ready to be cleaned.
These steps of 1 – 7, 20, 21, 23, 27, 34, 35, 40 – 42, and 47 – 50, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner understands the claimed invention, as a whole, in light of the Specification. For example, paragraph 4 describes the invention as:
[0004] The system helps to automate and/or reduce the labor involved in a number of tasks, such as, but not limited to, the following: cleaning the patient support apparatus; notifying the appropriate personnel when the patient support apparatus needs to be cleaned, and/or after it has been cleaned; verifying the cleaning of the patient support apparatus with the automatic identification of the person(s) who undertook the cleaning; notifying transport workers when a patient needs to be transported; determining a closest transport worker to a patient who needs transportation within the healthcare facility; updating an equipment weight log with an identification of equipment location, a time stamp of equipment changes, and an ID of the caregiver responsible for the equipment changes. These and other aspects of the present disclosure will be apparent to a person of ordinary skill light of the following written description and accompanying drawings.
The Examiner understands that the invention uses technology. However, the disclosed invention is not directed towards a technological improvement. Further, the disclosed invention is not directed towards solving a problem found within technology. It is the Examiner’s point that the claimed invention applies technology to the abstract idea to achieve all the benefits of applying technology to the abstract idea.
The Examiner notes that the result of the invention is information. That resultant information may be used by a person or may be used by not-disclosed machine in a later step. However, that later use represents a potential application and not a practical application. To make this clearer here is an example.
The current claimed invention outputs to a display or is transmitted/ saved on a server.
Instead, change the output to a piece of paper. The resulting words represents why this is not a practical application.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2 – 7, 21, 23, 27, 34, 35, 41, 42, and 47 – 50, reciting particular aspects of how cleaning verification may be performed but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of controller adapted to amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 7, 21, 23, 27, 34, 35, 41, 42, and 47 – 50, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 7, 20, 21, 23, 27, 34, 35, 40 – 42, and 47 – 5; determine, save, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional Elements
a support surface adapted to support a patient – paragraph 2 beds, cots, stretchers, recliners, or the like
servers – paragraph 161 conventional
a plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers – paragraph 185 any of the …
a display – paragraphs 233, 237 smartphone, tablet, tv
a network transceiver – paragraph 247 WiFi
a controller – paragraph 206 conventional computing device
badge – paragraph 205 those badges that include…
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 7, 21, 23, 27, 34, 35, 41, 42, and 47 – 50, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, storing data, sending data, updating data e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Receveur et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2021/ 0065885.
As per claim 1
Receveur teaches a patient support apparatus system comprising a patient support apparatus and a server, wherein the patient support apparatus comprises:
a support surface adapted to support a patient (figure 1, #140);
a plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers (figure 1, #140, #102);
a display (paragraph 168 displayed on a mobile device);
a network transceiver adapted to communicate with the server (paragraph 168 mobile device); and
a controller adapted to use (figure 6, #150 and paragraph 135)
radio frequency (RF) communication between the plurality of ultra-wideband transceivers (paragraphs 135 and 136)and
a badge worn by a worker to determine a position of the badge relative to the patient support apparatus (paragraph 128 locating tag Paragraph 130, badge or tag interchangeable paragraph 170 housekeeper locating tag #240),
the controller further adapted (paragraphs 135 and 136)
to receive a badge identifier from the badge (paragraph 129 tag identification);
to determine if the badge is positioned inside or outside of a volume of space (paragraph 145 determined to be inside of a radius of a
predetermined distance from the equipment locating tag 102
attached to patient support apparatus 110); and,
if the badge is positioned inside the volume of space, to transmit the badge identifier to the server (paragraph 146); and
wherein at least one of the controller or the server is adapted to perform the following:
determine if the badge is associated with a cleaning worker (paragraph 170), and
if the badge is associated with a cleaning worker,
the controller is adapted to automatically display a cleaning screen on the display (paragraph 177).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2021/ 0065885.
As per claim 2, Receveur teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
Receveur does not explicitly teaches the apparatus wherein the cleaning screen includes instructions for cleaning the patient support apparatus.
However, the instructions represent words displayed that have a potential purpose. Receveur teaches displaying other words (paragraph 168 and 169). The ability to substitute one word for another word in known. The result of displaying other words is the same of presenting information that has a potential action.
The prior art differs from the claim by the substitution of some components. The substituted components were known. The technical ability existed to substitute the components as claimed and the result of the substitution is predictable.
Claims 3, 20, 21, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2021/ 0065885 in view of Adam et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2022/ 0284795.
As per claim 3, Receveur teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as described above.
Receveur does not explicitly teach however, Adam further teaches the apparatus wherein at least one of the controller and the server is adapted to perform the following:
(i) measure a length of time the badge remains inside the volume of space (figure 4, #402);
(ii) compare the measured length of time to a threshold amount of time (figure 4, #404); and
(iii) if the measured length of time exceeds the threshold amount of time, determine that the patient support apparatus has been cleaned (paragraphs 54 – 62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Receveur. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Receveur with the motivation to provide surveillance data processing for sanitation verification (Adam, Abstract).
As per claim 20,
Receveur in view of Adam teaches a patient support apparatus system comprising a patient support apparatus and a server as described above in claim 3.
As per claim 21, Receveur in view of Adam teaches the apparatus of claim 20 as described above.
Receveur in view of Adam teaches the apparatus as described above in claim 2.
As per claim 35, Receveur in view of Adam teaches the apparatus of claim 34 as described above.
Receveur in view of Adam do not explicitly teach however, Wilson further teaches the apparatus wherein the additional condition includes at least one of the following:
(a) a lack of patient weight detected by a scale system integrated into the patient support apparatus;
(b) a receipt of data from an Admission, Discharge and Transfer server indicating that the patient assigned to the patient support apparatus has been discharged from a healthcare facility in which the patient support apparatus is located(paragraphs 17, 66);
(c) a lack of an ultra-wideband tag worn by the patient being detected inside the volume of space by the ultra-wideband transceivers; or
(d) a detection of a second badge inside the volume of space within a defined amount of time prior to the badge being positioned inside the volume of space.
Claims 4 – 7, 23, 27, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2021/ 0065885 in view of Adam et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2022/ 0284795 and Wilson et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2011/ 0205061.
As per claim 4, Receveur in view of Adam teaches the apparatus of claim 3 as described above.
Receveur in view of Adam do not explicitly teach however, Wilson further teaches the apparatus wherein, after the patient support apparatus has been determined to have been cleaned, the controller is adapted to determine if a scale system onboard the patient support apparatus has been zeroed or not (figure 7B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Receveur in view of Adam. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Receveur in view of Adam with the motivation to determine one or more actions to be performed and performed by a caregiver or other staff person of the healthcare facility. (Wilson, Abstract).
As per claim 5, Receveur in view of Adam teaches the apparatus of claim 3 as described above.
Receveur in view of Adam do not explicitly teach however, Wilson further teach the apparatus wherein, after the badge has been determined to be associated with a cleaning worker, the controller is further adapted to automatically display a bed zeroing reminder screen on the display (figure 14, #720 and paragraph 152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Receveur in view of Adam for the reasons as described above.
As per claim 6, Receveur in view of Adam, further in view of Wilson, teaches the apparatus of claim 5 as described above.
Receveur in view of Adam do not explicitly teach however, Wilson further teaches the apparatus wherein the controller is adapted to automatically display the bed zeroing reminder screen on the display a predetermined amount of time after the badge has been determined to be associated with a cleaning worker (Figure 11B, paragraph 152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Receveur in view of Adam for the reasons as described above.
As per claim 7, Receveur in view of Adam, further in view of Wilson, teaches the apparatus of claim 5 as described above.
Receveur in view of Adam do not explicitly teach however, Wilson further teaches the apparatus wherein the controller is adapted to display the bed zeroing reminder screen on the display a predetermined amount of time after the patient support apparatus has been determined to have been cleaned (Paragraphs 197 and 198).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Receveur in view of Adam for the reasons as described above.
As per claim 23, Receveur in view of Adam teaches the apparatus of claim 20 as described above.
Receveur in view of Adam and Wilson teaches the apparatus as described above in claim 4.
As per claim 27, Receveur in view of Adam, further in view of Wilson, teaches the apparatus of claim 23 as described above.
Receveur in view of Adam and Wilson teaches the apparatus as described above in claim 7.
As per claim 34, Receveur in view of Adam teaches the apparatus of claim 20 as described above.
Receveur in view of Adam do not explicitly teach however, Wilson further teaches the apparatus wherein the at least one of the controller or the server is adapted to determine that the patient support apparatus has been cleaned only if an additional condition has been met in addition to the measured length of time exceeding the threshold amount of time (Paragraphs 196 –199).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Receveur in view of Adam for the reasons as described above.
Claims 40 – 42 and 47 – 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2021/ 0065885 in view of Wilson et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication 2011/ 0205061.
As per claim 40,
Receveur teaches a patient support apparatus system comprising a patient support apparatus and a server, wherein the patient support apparatus as described above in claim 1.
Receveur does not explicitly teach however, Wilson further teaches the apparatus
wherein at least one of the controller or the server is adapted to perform the following:
(i) determine if the badge is associated with a transport worker (paragraph 58 alert based upon staff member paragraph 169 staff member paragraph 171 caregiver is also transport); and
(ii) if the badge is associated with a transport worker, determine that the patient support apparatus is ready to be cleaned (paragraph 164 status change 252 means cleaning).
Paragraph 268, “The exiting of the badge 142 from space volume 152c is presumed to occur while the patient is with the transport worker, thereby establishing that patient support apparatus 20 is no longer being used by that particular patient, and therefore is ready to be cleaned.”
Paragraph 269, “For example, in some embodiments, controller 140 is further configured to detect a UWB tag 188 worn by the patient, and controller 140 and/or patient support apparatus server 84 are configured to conclude that the patient support apparatus 20 is ready to be cleaned only if both of the following conditions are met: (1 ) the transport worker's badge 142 is initially detected inside space volume 152c and then moves outside of this space volume 152c; and (2) the UWB tag 1 88 worn by the patient also exits from space volume 152c around the same time as the transport worker's badge 142.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Receveur. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Receveur with the motivation to determine one or more actions to be performed and performed by a caregiver or other staff person of the healthcare facility. (Wilson, Abstract).
As per claim 41, Receveur in view of Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 40 as described above.
Receveur in view of Wilson further teaches the apparatus as described above in claim 34.
As per claim 42, Receveur in view of Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 41 as described above.
Receveur in view of Wilson further teaches the apparatus as described above in claim 35.
As per claim 47, Receveur in view of Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 40 as described above.
Receveur further teaches the apparatus wherein the server is further configured to send a message to a cleaning server after the patient support apparatus has been determined to be ready to be cleaned (paragraph 177).
As per claim 48, Receveur in view of Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 40 as described above.
Receveur further teaches the apparatus wherein the server is further configured to send a message to a second badge, wherein the second badge is associated with a cleaning worker responsible for cleaning the patient support apparatus (paragraphs 177, 178 including by incorporation).
As per claim 49, Receveur in view of Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 40 as described above.
Receveur in view of Wilson do not explicitly teach however, Wilson further teaches the apparatus wherein the server is further configured to automatically transmit a message to the badge after the badge has moved outside of the volume of space (paragraphs 195 – 199 patient badge is moving outside the room upon admission. Housekeeping is automatically messaged).
As per claim 50, Receveur in view of Wilson teaches the apparatus of claim 49 as described above.
Receveur in view of Wilson do not explicitly teach however it would have been obvious to do so for the reasons as described above in claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reid et al., Pub. No.: US 2012/0116803 A room monitoring system includes a plurality of in-room units.
Snodgrass et al. Pub. No.: US 2012/0256742 A system and method for monitoring personal protection items of a healthcare worker
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626