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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not relevant to the invention. The Abstract is related to CLM (8/29/2024: “user interface, foot pedal”), which was then cancelled and a new set of claims, CLM (12/17/2025: “light projection”), was then filed. The abstract should be changed to reflect the invention in CLM (12/17/2025).
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 31, 2nd line, “comprising” should be changed to “comprising:” (colon added) to separate the preamble from the body of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 31 - 39, 41 - 42, 46 - 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connell et al. (US 9486084 B2).
Regarding claim 31, Connell discloses a patient support apparatus for use in a room having a floor surface (Fig. 1; wherein the patient support apparatus is the hospital bed; claim 38, line 5 discloses “floor”), the patient support apparatus comprising
a frame having a head end, a foot end, and a pair of laterally spaced apart sides (Fig. 1, headboard 106, end board 108; column 2, lines 31 – 36 also discloses siderails 110 on side of bed) that cooperate with the head end and the foot end to form corner regions of the frame (Fig. 1, 4 corners shown; column 1, lines 35 - 37), the head end and foot end being spaced apart in a longitudinal dimension of the patient support apparatus (shown in Fig. 1),
and a projector arrangement coupled to the frame (Fig. 1, illuminable indicator 200 shown attached to frame at foot end of the bed; column 3, lines 13 – 49 discloses multiple locations of the “illuminable indicator”, including attached to the frame) and operable to project a plurality of lighted fields onto the floor surface in an area of the floor surface near the foot end of the frame (Fig. 1, illuminable indicator 200 shown attached to frame at corner of the bed, hence the light projection will be near the foot end of the bed) and to project an additional lighted field onto the floor surface in an area of the floor surface near one of the sides of the pair of laterally spaced apart sides of the frame (Fig. 1, illuminable indicator 200 shown attached to frame at corner of the bed, hence the light projection will also be near the sides of the bed. Column 3, lines 13 – 49 discloses additional locations and lines 44 – 47 discloses “The indicator 200 is attached to the bed in a manner that allows a least a portion of the indicator to project outwardly of the bed in either the side direction, end direction, or both directions for improved visibility…”; column 3, lines 16 – 20 discloses “..the illuminable indicators 200 can be generally arranged about an outer perimeter of the bed 100, and can be arranged to cast light to most if not substantially all vantage points around the bed 100.”; wherein the floor is interpreted as a vantage point around the bed) , wherein the lighted fields relate to a status of a monitored condition of the patient support apparatus (column 1, lines 18 – 21; column 3, lines 13 - 15).
Connell doesn’t explicitly disclose projecting on the floor. However, as stated above, Connell discloses projecting onto a vantage point, wherein the floor is interpreted as a vantage point around the bed (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale F).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have the floor as a projection point (vantage point), as projected light on the floor would be easily seen by a nurse/medical personnel passing by.
Regarding claim 32, Connell discloses the projector arrangement is operable to project the plurality of lighted fields in a first color and a second color (column 3, lines 52 – 55 discloses “…such light can be of different colors,…”).
Regarding claim 33, Connell discloses the frame includes a base frame and an upper frame supported above the base frame and wherein the projector arrangement is carried by the upper frame (Fig. 1; wherein the base frame is interpreted as the frame with leg assemblies 112, 114 and the upper frame is interpreted as the bed frame 102; column 2, lines 57 – 58, 26 – 29; Fig. 1 shows illuminable indicator 200 attached to upper frame; wherein the projector is the illuminable indicator 200).
Regarding claim 34, Connell discloses the additional lighted field also relates to the monitored condition of the patient support apparatus (column 1, lines 18 – 21; column 3, lines 13 - 15).
Regarding claim 35, Connell discloses the additional lighted field is situated about midway between the head end and the foot end of the frame (column 3, lines 13 – 49 discloses multiple locations of the “illuminable indicator”; column 3, lines 16 – 20 discloses “..the illuminable indicators 200 can be generally arranged about an outer perimeter of the bed 100; wherein outer perimeter would include the section midway between the head end and foot end of the bed).
Claim 36 is similarly analyzed as claim 35.
Regarding claim 37, Connell discloses the monitored condition of the patient support apparatus relates to bed exit of a patient supported on the patient support apparatus (column 3, lines 50 – 60, in particular lines 56 – 57 discloses “… attempting to exit..”).
Regarding claims 38 and 39, Connell doesn’t explicitly disclose if the monitored condition is in an unsatisfactory state, the lighted fields projected onto the floor surface are amber in color or red in color.
However, Connell discloses (column , lines ): “Such information can include different conditions conveyed by light emitted by the illuminable indicator 200, and such light can be of different colors …. Different conditions can include a condition of the occupant of the bed (e.g., moving or not, attempting to exit, pressing a call-attendant button, etc.), a condition of the bed (e.g., malfunction, low battery, etc.), or the function of related equipment (e.g., a heart monitor, an intravenous drip device, etc.), and can include a normal condition, a warning condition, and/or an alarm condition.”
Hence one of ordinary skill in the art can assign red color to an unsatisfactory state and green color to a satisfactory state. As per Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationale E), these are obvious to try.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have green for satisfactory conditions and red for unsatisfactory conditions as these color codes are commonly used in daily life and well known.
Claim 41 is similarly analyzed as claim 38 and 39. Claim 41 recites having icons that are green/red depending on the monitored condition. Claims 38 and 30 recited having different light colors based on the monitored condition. These are obvious variations of each other and one of ordinary skill in the art can use a footboard icon to display the condition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use footboard icons to display monitored conditions as icons would be useful as an alternate indicator to lights. Icons would be useful for closeup situations, e.g., if a nurse was at the bed.
Regarding claim 42, Connell does not disclose the icons are unlit if the associated feature of the patient support apparatus is not being monitored.
However, this is obvious to try and an obvious variation of turning the projected light on/off (Rationales for Obviousness (MPEP 2143, Rationales E & F) ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to turn the icons off if no monitoring is done, as this will provide an indication of “no monitoring” and also reduce any possible confusion.
Regarding claim 46, Connell discloses each of the lighted fields of the plurality of lighted fields is circular in shape (column 5, lines 15 – 16; hence lighted field will be circular).
Claim 47 is similarly analyzed as claim 46.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40, 43 – 45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 support apparatus with light projection systems:
Derenne et al. (US 20120075464 A1) discloses patient video monitoring system that utilized light projections ([0049], Fig. 1, element 30).
Pesot et al. (US 20110205062 A1) discloses nurse call system with additional status board. [0070], [0116] disclose use of bed exit icon, though not on a footboard.
Collins et al. (US 20070210917 A1) discloses use of a bed exit alarm ([0090]) with icon in a menu.
Bokamper (US 6234642 B1) discloses Bed with Improved Lighting Features.
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
Prosecution Insights