CTNF 18/753,274 CTNF 81681 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “the bed ” (line 4). There is no antecedent basis for this. “bed” should be changed to “patient support apparatus” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 - 5, 7 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huster (US 20150033295 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Huster discloses a patient support apparatus (Figs. 1 & 2; [0053] – [0054]; wherein the patient support system is the patient bed) comprising: a litter frame (Fig. 2; wherein the litter frame is the bed frame); a support deck supported on the litter frame and configured to support a patient thereon (Fig. 2, element 42; [0062] discloses “….a patient support surface 42 .”); a memory containing an identifier uniquely identifying the bed ([0090] discloses “ In the illustrative example of FIG. 7, bed 320 is shown to be in wireless communication with one of WAP's 330 and thus, bed 320 sends its bed ID to WAP 330 which, in turn, sends the bed ID and its respective WAP ID to server 312 .”; Fig. 3, memory 72); a display (Fig. 3, display 88; [0073] discloses “The control system further includes a user interface 78 that includes a display 88 ….”); and a controller in communication with the memory and the display (Fig. 3, controller 66; [0072]) . Huster does not disclose the controller adapted to display a code on the display, the code encoding a static piece of information and a dynamic piece of information, wherein the dynamic piece of information varies and the static piece of information remains the same. However, Huster discloses ([0098]) “For example, some beds 320 display information such as patient weight and a head angle of a head section of the mattress support deck”. Static information could be patient weight and dynamic information could be the head angle, which could be dynamic at times as the head angle is varied occasionally. Under Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F), displaying any other information related to the patient is obvious to try or an obvious variation of the above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to display other pieces of static and dynamic information, because this would allow the caregiver to view patient data on the display. Regarding claim 2, Huster discloses identifier ([0090], as in claim 1) but does not disclose the static piece of information includes the identifier. However, as per the argument in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art could have the static information as the identifier. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to display the bed identifier (static information), because this would allow the caregiver to know and transmit the bed identifier associated with a patient. Claims 3, 4, 5 are analyzed using the same arguments as in claims 1 and 2. Displaying dynamic information, such as current time from a sensor (clock) or current day, would allow the caregiver and/or patient to know the current day and time. Regarding claim 7, Huster discloses a control panel including a control (Fig. 3, user interface 78, user inputs 90, display 88) , wherein the controller is further configured to display the code (Fig. 3, code can be displayed on 88) and a user activating the control (Fig. 3, element 90 can receive user inputs). Huster does not disclose the code is displayed in response to the user activating the control. However, this is obvious to try (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E) since Huster discloses them separately and one of ordinary skill in the art can easily combine them together. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to display the code in response to the user activating the control, because this would allow the caregiver quick access to the code if the patient activates the control e.g. calls the caregiver. Regarding claim 8, Huster discloses a mobile computing device (Fig. 3, mobile device 14). A mobile device has a plurality of screens, which one of ordinary skill in the art can navigate through. Displaying the code on any screen is obvious to try. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art can replicate the same on the control panel. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have a plurality of screens because items of different categories can be displayed on different screens to simplify and organize the viewing. Claim 9 is analyzed as in claim 1. Static information doesn’t change so it doesn’t need to be updated, whereas dynamic information changes, so it needs to be updated on the display. Since such information is already displayed (as in claim 1), updating the display is an obvious variation (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale F)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to not update static information and update dynamic information, because this would always have the latest information displayed. Claim 10 is similarly analyzed as claim 2. Regarding claim 11, Huster discloses including a network transceiver adapted to communicate with a server of a healthcare facility network (Fig. 1, bed communicates with server 18 via link 32; Fig. 3, patient support apparatus 40 communicates with server 18 via communications circuitry 74; [0063]). Regarding claim 12, Huster discloses the network transceiver is a wireless transceiver ([0064], last line discloses “In other embodiments, the patient support system 12 may include a wireless transceiver that permits the patient support system 12 to communicate to the remote server 18 through a wireless communication link.”). Regarding claim 13, Huster discloses a location transceiver adapted to receive a location identifier from a fixed beacon (Fig. 7, location transceiver interpreted as WAP 330; [0088]; fixed beacon can be part of bed circuity, Fig. 3, element 74. Location identifier can be transmitted using transmission systems in claim 11, 12). Regarding claim 14, Huster discloses the location transceiver is a wireless transceiver adapted to receive a short range signal from the fixed beacon ([0092] discloses short range transmission protocols Bluetooth, Zigbee, infrared). Regarding claim 15, Huster discloses the location transceiver is an infrared transceiver ([0092]). Regarding claim 16, Huster discloses the controller is further adapted to transmit the location identifier to the server via the network transceiver (Fig. 3, processor 70 can transmit memory items like identifier via communications circuitry 74 to server 18; [0090] discloses “ ….bed 320 sends its bed ID to WAP 330 which, in turn, sends the bed ID and its respective WAP ID to server 312”). Regarding claim 17, Huster discloses the controller is further adapted to check to see a component of the patient support apparatus is in a compliant state or a non-compliant state, to display the code if the component is in the compliant state, and to not display the code if the component is in the non-compliant state ([0098] discloses alert lights and “…Such information is available for display on interfaces 314, 316 by navigating to the appropriate screens on interfaces 314, 316 just as the caregiver would do on the patient care device itself ”; bed components are brake, rails, exiting ([0039]). Displaying or not displaying alert lights is obvious to try depending on the condition of the component (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to display alerts based on compliant/non-compliant state of the bed components. Claim 18 is similarly analyzed as in claim 1. Encoding more than two pieces of information can be done similar to encoding the two pieces in claim 1 and for the same reasons stated in claim 1 (i.e. encoding more information allows the caregiver to see more information regarding the patient). Claim 19 is similarly analyzed as claim 18 and 17 since information about components is known and can be displayed. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art known when a component is non-compliant and can display an alert accordingly. Regarding claim 20, Huster discloses ( a) a brake adapted to selectively brake a wheel (Fig. 2, wheel 46 has a brake (no part number shown) attached) ; (b) a siderail adapted to move between a raised and lowered position (Fig. 2, siderails shown without part numbers; Raising and lowering is obvious and inherent for patient to enter/exit the bed) ; (c) a lift system adapted to change a height of the litter frame ([0037]); and (d) an exit detection system adapted to issue an alert when the exit detection system is armed and the patient exits from the bed ([0039] discloses exiting bed; [0098] discloses alert lights); and wherein the component is one of the brake, the siderail, the lift system, or the exit detection system (as above) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huster (US 20150033295 A1) in view of Leininger et al. (US 20130012830 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Huster does not disclose the code is a Quick Response (QR) code. In the same field of endeavor, however, Leininger discloses the code is a Quick Response (QR) code ([0129] discloses I/O devices e.g. QR code usage and scanners). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the method, as disclosed by Leininger, in the system of Huster because QR codes are easy to scan and would provide a caregiver patient/other information easily. Other Prior Art Cited The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure. The following patents/publications are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to patient apparatuses: Hayes et al. (US 20160213537 A1) discloses a caregiver assistance system for assisting a caregiver to reduce patient fall risks. Bhimavarapu et al. (US 20180350464) discloses patient care devices with open communication. Hayes et al. (US 20150082542) discloses patient support apparatus communication systems. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADOLF DSOUZA whose telephone number is (571)272-1043. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM. 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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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. /ADOLF DSOUZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/753,274 Page 2 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/753,274 Page 3 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/753,274 Page 4 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/753,274 Page 5 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/753,274 Page 6 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/753,274 Page 7 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/753,274 Page 8 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/753,274 Page 9 Art Unit: 2632 Application/Control Number: 18/753,274 Page 10 Art Unit: 2632
Prosecution Insights