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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10,679,748, claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,011,272, claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,468,986, claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,769,590 and claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,806. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kramer et al. Pub. No. US 2002/0014951 (hereinafter Kramer).
Regarding claim 1, Kramer discloses a system (see fig.1) comprising:
an image sensor coupled to a communication network and being configured to capture image data (see paragraph [0033]);
a patient support apparatus including:
a support structure configured to support a patient (see figs. 2A-2B), and a controller coupled to the communication network (see fig.5, paragraphs [0034-0036 and 0044]) and configured to analyze the image data to determine a patient condition (see paragraph [0033]); and
a remote caregiver interface coupled to the communication network (see paragraph [0033]: element 150/transceiver 145) and configured to:
display the image data for viewing by a user of the remote caregiver interface (see paragraph [0033]), and notify the user of the patient condition determined by the controller (see paragraphs [0039, 0049, 0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Kramer further discloses wherein the patient condition comprises a patient presence, a comfort indication of the patient, a physiological state of the patient, or combinations thereof (see paragraphs [0039,0049, 0052]).
Regarding claim 3, Kramer further discloses wherein the image sensor comprises an infrared image sensor, a visual light image sensor, or a combination thereof (see paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 4, Kramer further discloses wherein the image sensor is coupled to the patient support apparatus (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 5, Kramer further discloses wherein the image sensor is coupled to a support near the patient support apparatus (see claim 8).
Regarding claim 6, Kramer further discloses wherein the patient support apparatus includes a powered device disposed in electrical communication with the controller; and wherein the remote caregiver interface is configured to: receive a selected remote control function from the user of the remote caregiver interface to operate the powered device, and transmit an input signal corresponding to the selected remote control function to the controller of the patient support apparatus to execute the selected remote control function to operate the powered device based on the input signal (see paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 7, Kramer further discloses wherein the powered device comprises an actuator configured to move the patient when the patient is disposed on the support structure (see paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Kramer further discloses wherein the patient support apparatus includes a side rail for selectively blocking patient ingress and egress into and out of the patient support apparatus; and wherein the powered device comprises an actuator for moving the side rail (see paragraphs [0036 and 0047]).
Regarding claim 9, Kramer further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: alter the selected remote control function based on the patient condition; and transmit an output signal to the powered device to execute the altered remote control function (see paragraphs [0036 and 0047]).
Regarding claim 10, Kramer further discloses wherein the remote caregiver interface is further configured to: alter the selected remote control function based on the patient condition, and transmit an input signal corresponding to the altered remote control function to the controller; and wherein the controller is further configured to transmit an output signal to the powered device to execute the altered remote control function based on the input signal corresponding to the altered remote control function (see paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 11, Kramer further discloses a patient sensor configured to transmit a sensor input signal in response to sensing a state of the patient (see paragraphs [0049-0050]).
Regarding claim 12, Kramer further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to receive the sensor input signal and determine the patient condition based on the sensor input signal (see paragraphs [0049-0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Kramer further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: alter the selected remote control function based on the patient condition; and transmit an output signal to the powered device to execute the altered remote control function (see paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 14, Kramer further discloses wherein the patient sensor is coupled to the communication network and wherein the remote caregiver interface is further configured to receive the sensor input signal and determine the patient condition based on the sensor input signal (see paragraphs [0049-0050]).
Regarding claim 15, Kramer further discloses wherein the remote caregiver interface is further configured to: alter the selected remote control function based on the patient condition; and transmit an input signal corresponding to the altered remote control function based on the patient condition; and wherein the controller is further configured to transmit the output signal to the powered device to execute the altered remote control function based on the input signal corresponding to the altered remote control function (see paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 20, Kramer further discloses wherein the communication network is a wireless network; and wherein the remote caregiver interface is a mobile device (see fig.1).
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 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kramer et al. Pub. No. US 2002/0014951 (hereinafter Kramer) in view of Wang et al. Pub. No. US 2008/0082211 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding claim 16, Kramer discloses the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Kramer fails to disclose:
wherein the remote caregiver interface comprises a camera configured to capture image data of the user of the remote caregiver interface.
In analogous art, Wang teaches:
wherein the remote caregiver interface comprises a camera configured to capture image data of the user of the remote caregiver interface (see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the videoconferencing features of Wang into the system of Kramer since doing so would allow a physician to achieve a more interactive experience with his/her patient when medical care is occurring remotely.
Regarding claim 17, Kramer in view of Wang disclose the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 16. Kramer further discloses a local user interface coupled to the communication network and being proximate to the patient support apparatus, the local user interface being configured to receive the image data of the user from the remote caregiver interface (see paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 18, Kramer in view of Wang disclose the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. Wang further discloses wherein the remote caregiver interface is further configured to initiate a video conference with the local user interface; and wherein the local user interface is further configured to initiate the video conference with the remote caregiver interface (see paragraph [0026]).
Regarding claim 19, Kramer in view of Wang disclose the system as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. Wang further discloses wherein one of the controller and the remote caregiver interface is further configured to initiate a video conference between the remote caregiver interface and the local user interface based on the patient condition (see paragraph [0026]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights