DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim(s) 19-20 and 22-39 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1-18 and 21 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 19 and 33 is/are independent.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or under 35 U.S.C. 120 is acknowledged. The prior-filed application is U.S. Application No. 17/747,223 (filed on 5/18/2022), which in turn claims benefit of the prior-filed application U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/190,232 (filed on 5/18/2021).
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement has been filed in the present application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 19-20, 23-27, 30 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huster et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0246088) (hereinafter “Huster”).
Regarding claim 19, Huster teaches a method of controlling a patient lift, (Para. 79 - - system controls patient mobile support system, i.e. lift)
the method comprising: receiving sensor feedback data, (Para. 66 - - sensors provide feedback data)
wherein the sensor feedback data comprises environmental data within a medical room (Para. 71, 73 - - sensors gather feedback data including environmental information in a medical room)
and position data relating to a patient lift within the medical room; (Para. 66 - - position data related to patient mobile support system, i.e. lift, is used)
determining that the sensor feedback data exceeds a threshold; (Para. 82 - - threshold is used in positioning system, i.e. sensor feedback system, to determine if the threshold is exceeded)
and adjusting one or more settings relating to the patient lift (Para. 107 - - airflow, pressure, i.e. settings, is adjusted related to patient mobile support system, i.e. lift)
based at least in part on the determination that the sensor feedback data exceeds a threshold. (Para. 82, 107 - - threshold is used in sensor feedback system to determine if the threshold is exceeded, and adjustment is based on the determination)
Regarding claim 20, Huster further teaches wherein adjusting the one or more settings comprises adjusting at least one of a speed or height of the patient lift or adjusting at least one of an airflow through one or more vents of the patient lift or a disinfecting within the medical room. (Para. 107 - - airflow to patient interface, i.e. through airflow vents, is adjusted)
Regarding claim 23, Huster further teaches storing the sensor feedback data with one or more timestamps in a memory. (Para. 75, 90-91 - - historical data is stored in memory, including real time information updated in memory, where historical data includes one or more timestamps in order to monitor status of patient support system and assess risk of patient falling; Para. 107 - - excessive time in a single position is detected by patient monitoring system, i.e. using timestamps)
Regarding claim 24, Huster further teaches tracking movement of a patient supported by the patient lift over time based at least in part on the stored sensor feedback data and the one or more timestamps. (Para. 107 - - patient mobility, i.e. movement, is monitored, i.e. tracked, and excessive time in a single position is determined, i.e. tracking is performed over time based on sensor feedback data and timestamps)
Regarding claim 25, Huster further teaches wherein the environmental data comprises at least one of temperature data, humidity data, airflow volume data, airflow speed data, particulate count data, particulate size data, microbial count data, microbial size data, or microbial type data. (Para. 73 - - environmental data includes temperature data)
Regarding claim 26, Huster further teaches wherein determining that the sensor feedback data exceeds the threshold comprises determining that an air quality measurement exceeds an air quality threshold. (Para. 107-108 - - temperature data is used as sensor feedback data, and determination is made if temperature reach unacceptable levels, i.e. exceed threshold, where temperature indicates air quality)
Regarding claim 27, Huster further teaches wherein adjusting the one or more settings comprises adjusting an airflow volume or an airflow speed through one or more vents associated with the patient lift. (Para. 107 - - airflow to patient interface, i.e. through airflow vents, is adjusted by increasing or decreasing flow of air, i.e. airflow volume or airflow speed)
Regarding claim 30, Huster further teaches wherein adjusting the one or more settings comprises adjusting a speed, a height, or a direction of travel of the patient lift. (Para. 83 - - height of bed, i.e. comprising patient lift, is adjusted)
Regarding claim 32, Huster further teaches determining a maintenance condition based at least in part on a change in an amount of time for the patient lift to traverse a path within the medical room. (Para. 105 - - patient support, i.e. lift, is maintained to mitigate VAP; Para. 107 - - where patient support is moved based on amount of time related to VAP mitigation)
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 20 and 22-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huster in view of Romo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0077651) (hereinafter “Romo”).
Regarding claim 22, Huster teaches the limitations of the base claim(s).
But Huster does not explicitly teach wherein the position data comprises x-direction travel telemetry, y-direction travel telemetry, and z-direction travel telemetry of the patient lift.
However, Romo teaches wherein the position data comprises x-direction travel telemetry, y-direction travel telemetry, and z-direction travel telemetry of the patient lift. (Para. 71, 127 - - position data includes three-dimensional coordinates data, where Huster has taught travel position of patient lift outlined above)
Huster and Romo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain systems used to manage patients in a medical/hospital setting.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Huster, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Romo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage precisely a target area/space, as suggested by Romo (Para. 71).
Regarding claim 28, Huster further teaches wherein adjusting the one or more settings comprises controlling…at or proximate to a location of the patient lift within the medical room. (Para. 107 - - airflow, pressure, i.e. settings, is adjusted related to patient mobile support system, i.e. lift, at or proximate to the lift)
But Huster does not explicitly teach controlling a disinfecting unit to disinfect air
However, Romo teaches controlling a disinfecting unit to disinfect air (Para. 71 - - disinfection devices are controlled)
Huster and Romo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain systems used to manage patients in a medical/hospital setting.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Huster, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Romo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to disinfect a target area/space, as suggested by Romo (Para. 71).
Regarding claim 29, Romo further teaches wherein controlling the disinfecting unit comprises controlling emission of ultraviolet light, UVC light, Far-UVC light, near ultraviolet light, 405 nm wavelength light, or vaporized hydrogen peroxide. (Para. 71 - - ultraviolet disinfection devices are controlled)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to disinfect a target area/space, as suggested by Romo (Para. 71).
Regarding claim 31, Huster teaches the limitations of the base claim(s).
But Huster does not explicitly teach determining a safety condition based at least in part on speed data included in the position data.
However, Romo teaches determining a safety condition based at least in part on speed data included in the position data. (Para. 193 - - speed or velocity data is used in disinfection; Para. 173 - - disinfection is done in safe manner, where safety is related to speed/velocity above)
Huster and Romo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain systems used to manage patients in a medical/hospital setting.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Huster, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Romo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage precisely a target area/space, as suggested by Romo (Para. 71).
Regarding claim 33, Huster teaches a method of controlling movement of a patient lift within a medical room, (Para. 79 - - system controls patient mobile support system, i.e. lift)
the method comprising: receiving, by a controller, position data corresponding to a position of the patient lift within the medical room, (Para. 66 - - position data related to patient mobile support system, i.e. lift, is used)
the position data being generated by one or more sensors associated with at least one of the patient lift, a gantry coupled to the patient lift, or one or more rails along which the gantry is movable; (Para. 66 - - frame, i.e. lift position, and side rail position sensors are used)
determining, by the controller and based at least in part on the position data, a current position of the patient lift…within the medical room; (Para. 66 - - position data related to patient mobile support system, i.e. lift, is used)
receiving, by the controller, environmental data corresponding to an environmental condition at or proximate to the current position of the patient lift; (Para. 71, 73 - - sensors gather feedback data including environmental information in a medical room)
determining, by the controller, whether the environmental condition satisfies a threshold condition; (Para. 107-108 - - temperature data is used as sensor feedback data, and determination is made if temperature reach unacceptable levels, i.e. exceed threshold)
and generating, by the controller, one or more control signals to adjust operation of at least one of the patient lift or an environmental control component within the medical room (Para. 107 - - airflow, pressure, i.e. settings, is adjusted related to patient mobile support system, i.e. lift; Fig. 1 - - environmental controller is used to adjust operation)
based at least in part on the determination of whether the environmental condition satisfies the threshold condition. (Para. 82, 107 - - threshold is used in sensor feedback system to determine if the threshold is exceeded, and adjustment is based on the determination, including temperature, i.e. environmental condition)
But Huster does not explicitly teach position…in at least two coordinate directions
However, Romo teaches position…in at least two coordinate directions (Para. 71, 127 - - position data includes three-dimensional coordinates data)
Huster and Romo are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and contain overlapping structural and/or functional similarities. They both contain systems used to manage patients in a medical/hospital setting.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above limitation(s) as taught by Huster, by incorporating the above limitation(s) as taught by Romo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage precisely a target area/space, as suggested by Romo (Para. 71).
Regarding claim 34, Romo further teaches wherein determining the current position comprises determining a position of the patient lift along an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis within the medical room. (Para. 71, 127 - - position data includes three-dimensional coordinates data, where Huster has taught travel position of patient lift)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage precisely a target area/space, as suggested by Romo (Para. 71).
Regarding claim 35, Huster further teaches wherein receiving the environmental data comprises receiving environmental data from one or more environmental sensors carried by the patient lift as the patient lift moves through the medical room. (Para. 71, 73 - - sensors gather feedback data including environmental information in a medical room, where patient lift moves in medical room)
Regarding claim 36, Huster further teaches wherein the one or more control signals adjust an environmental condition at a location identified by coordinates of the patient lift within the medical room. (Para. 107 - - airflow, pressure, i.e. settings, is adjusted related to patient mobile support system, i.e. lift, located at the surface of the support, i.e. at an identified location)
Regarding claim 37, Huster further teaches wherein generating the one or more control signals comprises generating a control signal…to adjust airflow at or proximate to the current position of the patient lift. (Para. 107 - - airflow, pressure, i.e. settings, is adjusted related to patient mobile support system, i.e. lift, located at the surface of the support, i.e. at or proximate to patient lift)
Romo further teaches to adjust an angle or size of an opening of one or more vents (Para. 78 - - arm can be adjusted at a variety of angles, where Huster teaches airflow control system, i.e. via vents)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to manage precisely a target area/space, as suggested by Romo (Para. 71).
Regarding claim 38, Romo further teaches wherein generating the one or more control signals comprises generating a control signal to control a disinfecting unit based at least in part on at least one of particulate count data or microbial count data included in the environmental data. (Para. 71 - - disinfection devices are controlled; Para. 90 - - pathogen, i.e. microbial count, are eradicated at various levels, i.e. counts)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to disinfect a target area/space, as suggested by Romo (Para. 71).
Regarding claim 39, Huster further teaches maintaining a current operating setting when the environmental condition does not satisfy the threshold condition. (Para. 107-108 - - temperature data, i.e. environmental condition, is used as sensor feedback data, and determination is made if temperature reach unacceptable levels, i.e. does not satisfy threshold condition, in which case, cooling is performed)
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0256346 by Stockmaster et al., which discloses medical rehab body weight support with horizontal and vertical force sensing and motion control (Title/Abstract).
U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0154569 by Wiggers et al., which discloses mobile patient support system (Title/Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saad M. Kabir whose telephone number is 571-270-0608 (direct fax number is 571-270-9933). The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays to Fridays 9am to 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mohammad Ali can be reached on 571-272-4105. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAAD M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights