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
In the amendment dated 6/19/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 1, 4,5, 20, 35, and 40 have been amended; Claims 2 – 3, 34, 41, and 42 have been canceled; Claims 136 and 137 have been added.
Claims 8 – 19, 22, 24 – 26, 28 – 33, 36 – 39, 43 – 46, and 51 – 135 have been previously canceled.
Claims 1, 4 – 7, 20, 21, 23, 27, 35, 40, 47 – 50, 136, and 137 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, 4 – 7, 20, 21, 23, 27, 35, 40, 47 – 50, 136, and 137 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, 4 – 7, 20, 21, 23, 27, 35, 40, 47 – 50, 136, and 137) which recite the abstract idea steps of
a scale system adapted to detect a weight of the patient when the patient is positioned on the support surface;
a network transceiver adapted to communicate with the server; and
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; and
determine that the patient support apparatus has been cleaned by detecting all of the following conditions:
(a) the badge is associated with a cleaning worker;
(b) no patient weight is detected by the scale system;
(c) the scale system detects an expected amount of disturbances associated with cleaning the patient support apparatus; and
(d) the badge remains within the volume of space for more than a threshold amount of time;
determine that the patient support apparatus has been cleaned if any one or more of the conditions (a) through (d) are not detected; and
output a cleaning completion message on the display in response to the patient support apparatus having been determined to have been cleaned.
These steps of 1, 4 – 7, 20, 21, 23, 27, 35, 40, 47 – 50, 136, and 137, 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 claims 4 – 7, 21, 23, 27, 35, 40, 47 – 50, 136, and 137, 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 4 – 7, 21, 23, 27, 35, 40, 47 – 50, 136, and 137, 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, 4 – 7, 20, 21, 23, 27, 35, 40, 47 – 50, 136, and 137; 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 4 – 7, 21, 23, 27, 35, 40, 47 – 50, 136, and 137, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Independent Claim 1 and its Dependent Claims, filed 6/19/2026, with respect to claims 1-7,20-21,23,27,34-35,40-42, and 47 – 50 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC §§ 102/ 103 rejections of 1-7,20-21,23,27,34-35,40-42, and 47 – 50 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Section 101 Rejections
The Applicant states, “In the rejection, the Office Action noted that "the result of the invention is information." Applicant submits that this is not true with respect to the amended claims. All three independent claims recite a practical application: claims 1 and 20 recite a system that automatically detects if a patient support apparatus is clean or not, and claim 30 recites a system that automatically detects if a patient support apparatus is ready to be cleaned.”
Regarding whether the invention results in information, the Examiner notes in the last sentence above, “…automatically detects if a patient support apparatus is ready to be cleaned.” That detection is a determination of facts which therefore results in information.
The Applicant’s further states “All three claims therefore recite automating a function, which is a practical application.” The function that the invention automates is determining if a bed was cleaned which was previously performed by a human. Therefore, the Applicant is confirming that the invention applies technology to the abstract idea to obtain all the benefits of applying that technology to the abstract idea. Further, the Applicant is arguing that automating a manual process. As the introduction to paragraph 4 states, “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…”
The Applicant further states, “Further, all three claims recite automating their respective functions using criteria that are not disclosed or suggested in the prior art.” As above, the Examiner agrees that the invention applies technology to an abstract idea to obtain all the benefits of applying that technology to the abstract idea. The invention automates a labor intensive process.
The result of the invention is data. That data represents the cleaning state of a bed. The invention ends with the presentation of the bed cleaning state. There is no disclosed technological improvement. There is no disclosed transformation. There is no disclosed practical application.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights