DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 2/13/2025. Claims 32, 34-37, 41, 45, 60, 63, 69, 73, 77, 83, 180-183, 187, and 198 are pending. Claims Claims 32, 34-37, 41, 45, 60, 63, 69, 73, 77, 180-183, and 198 are rejected. Claims 83 and 187 are objected to.
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 .
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 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 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.
Claims 32, 34, 41, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Patent Application Publication 2007/0296600 to Dixon et al. (“Dixon”).
Claim 32. A patient support apparatus comprising: a support deck adapted to support a patient thereon (Dixon Fig. 1); a frame (Dixon Fig. 1, #12) adapted to support the support deck; a plurality of force sensors (Dixon, see Abstract and claim 23) adapted to detect a weight supported by the frame; an actuator adapted to move a component of the patient support apparatus (Dixon paragraph [0029] discusses head and knee articulation actuators); a control panel (Dixon Fig. 1, #40) including a movement control, wherein the movement control is adapted to drive the actuator when the movement control is activated; and a controller adapted to detect if a change in the weight exceeds a threshold amount while the actuator is moving the component, to provide an indication to a user that contact with an obstruction has been made if the change in the weight exceeds the threshold amount, and to allow the user to change a value of the threshold amount (the apparatus of Dixon performs the claimed obstruction detection; see at least Fig. 13, paragraphs [0090]-[0091] and [0097]; regarding threshold amounts, see at least paragraph [0094] and claim 23)
Claim 34. The patient support apparatus of claim 32 wherein the control panel is adapted to allow the user to select at least three different values for the threshold amount, wherein the at least three different values correspond to high, medium, and low sensitivity levels for detecting contact with the obstruction (Dixon discloses the use of three different weight change levels in claim 23).
Claim 41. The patient support apparatus of claim 32 wherein the controller is further adapted to automatically stop movement of the component when contact is detected; to determine a maximum weight change reading while the component is moving and a residual weight change reading when the controller automatically stops movement of the component; and to use the maximum weight change reading and the residual weight change reading to evaluate whether to provide the indication to the user that contact with the obstruction has been made (see Dixon paragraph [0097], which discloses detection of a “greatly reduced weight reading within a short period of time” which indicates an obstruction has been hit and which can automatically stop the movement of the apparatus, and which reads on Applicant’s “residual weight”; also see paragraphs [0087]-[0088] which discuss an amount of weight change).
Claim 45. The patient support apparatus of claim 41 wherein the controller is further adapted to determine a rate at which the weight changes while the component is moving, and to use the rate at which the weight changes to evaluate whether to provide the indication to the user that contact with the obstruction has been made (see Dixon paragraph [0097], which discloses detection of a “greatly reduced weight reading within a short period of time” which indicates an obstruction has been hit).
Claims 35-37, 60, 63, 69, 73, and 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Patent Application Publication 2007/0296600 to Dixon et al. (“Dixon”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143566 to Elku et al. (“Elku”).
Claim 35. The patient support apparatus of claim 32 wherein the controller is adapted to determine a location of the contact with the obstruction by calculating a center of gravity of the change in the weight (Dixon does not discuss using a center of gravity to detect an obstruction; however Elku discusses this method in at least paragraph [0394]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the CG calculation of Elku in order to ensure that a bed is stable and to prevent the bed from toppling, as is taught by Elku).
Claim 36. The patient support apparatus of claim 35 wherein the controller is further adapted to use a first value for the threshold amount if the location of the contact falls within a first area and to use a second value for the threshold amount if the location of the contact falls within a second area, wherein the first value is different from the second value and the first area is different from the second area (Elku teaches the use of at least three regions or areas in paragraph [0394] and discusses thresholds in paragraph [0393]; Dixon also discusses the use of a threshold in paragraphs [0091]-[0093]).
Claim 37. The patient support apparatus of claim 36 further comprising a plurality of siderails moveable between raised and lowered positions, wherein the controller is further adapted to define a boundary of the first area based on a position of at least one of the siderails (Dixon does not disclose changing an area or threshold region for obstruction detection which a change in the location of side rails, however Elku paragraphs [0381]-[0382] teach that when a siderail is lowered that the region in which the bed can be lowered will be reduced; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide this functionality to the bed of Dixon in order to “advantageously help prevent damage to the side rails 110, 113 or objects on the floor underneath the side rails 110, 113” as stated by Elku).
Claim 60. See rejection of claim 32, above. Regarding additional language directed toward “a first area” and “a second area”, Dixon only generally describes that sensors may be located at various locations in the bed (paragraph [0015]), however Elku paragraph [0394] describes using multiple different regions as envelopes for a center of gravity; Elku discusses this method in at least paragraph [0394]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the CG calculation of Elku in order to ensure that a bed is stable and to prevent the bed from toppling, as is taught by Elku. Regarding different threshold weight change amounts, see Dixon, claim 23, or alternatively Elku paragraphs [0393]-[0394].
Claim 63. The patient support apparatus of claim 60 wherein the control panel is adapted to allow the user to select at least three different values for both the first and second threshold amounts, wherein the at least three different values correspond to high, medium, and low sensitivity levels for detecting contact with the obstruction (Dixon discloses the use of three different weight change levels in claim 23; alternatively see Elku paragraph [0393]).
Claim 69. The patient support apparatus of claim 60 wherein the controller is further adapted to automatically stop movement of the component when contact is detected; to determine a maximum weight change reading while the component is moving and a residual weight change reading when the controller automatically stops movement of the component; and to use the maximum weight change reading and the residual weight change reading to evaluate whether to provide the indication to the user that contact with the obstruction has been made (see Dixon paragraph [0097], which discloses detection of a “greatly reduced weight reading within a short period of time” which indicates an obstruction has been hit and which can automatically stop the movement of the apparatus, and which reads on Applicant’s “residual weight”; also see paragraphs [0087]-[0088] which discuss an amount of weight change).
Claim 73. The patient support apparatus of claim 69 wherein the controller is further adapted to determine a rate at which the weight changes while the component is moving and to use the rate at which the weight changes to evaluate whether to provide the indication to the user that contact with the obstruction has been made (see Dixon paragraph [0097], which discloses detection of a “greatly reduced weight reading within a short period of time” which indicates an obstruction has been hit).
Claim 77. The patient support apparatus of claim 60 further comprising a display, and wherein the controller is adapted to display the location of the contact on the display (Elku provides “graphics on a display, for describing the functions of the buttons or other interface and as well as indicating data related to the patient support” and also teaches obstruction sensors on legs and castor assemblies in Figs. 66A-66C; therefore, Elku makes obvious to “display the location of the contact on the display”; furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide this functionality to the bed of Dixon in order to be able to prevent, diagnose, and/or alleviate a situation in which an obstruction is encountered; it is noted that Dixon also discloses sensors at the corners of the bed in paragraph [0097]).
Claims 180-182 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Patent Application Publication 2007/0296600 to Dixon et al. (“Dixon”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0166453 to Furman et al. (“Furman”).
Claim 180. See rejection of claim 32, above. Regarding additional language directed toward “a first change in weight” and “a residual change in weight” and “a false detection of contact with the obstruction”, Dixon does not discuss a false detection system. As best understood from Applicant’s specification paragraph [00144], a residual weight change is the detected weight change “which is the amount of weight change (from the baseline weight) that is detected by force sensors 54 in the moment after movement of the one or more actuator(s) 26 and/or 66 stops (or a predetermined amount of time after movement stops)”. Dixon discloses detecting an obstruction, based on sensors on at least each corner of the bed, and discusses in paragraph [0097], “a negative value or a greatly reduced weight reading within a short period of time” generally indicates an obstruction. Dixon does not discuss a false detection functionality. Furman teaches a similar bed and anticipates the need for a false detection system in paragraphs [0058]-[0063]. Furman Fig. 9 provides additional detail, and additionally teaches that force sensors may be used for determination of a false positive obstruction determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the weight sensors (force sensors) of Dixon with the methodology of Furman to compare weight before and after a potential obstruction event to determine if that event is false or actual, for the benefit of “voiding false detection of a pinch event when an obstruction is not actually present, while also facilitating accurate detection of a pinch event when an obstruction is actually present” as stated in Furman paragraph [0056].
Claim 181. The patient support apparatus of claim 180 wherein the controller is adapted to determine if actual contact with the obstruction has occurred by detecting if the first change in the weight exceeds a threshold amount while the actuator is moving the component (the combination Dixon and Furman provides the claimed “actual contact” determination; see rejection of claim 180, above).
Claim 182. The patient support apparatus of claim 181 wherein the controller is further adapted to determine if actual contact with the obstruction has occurred by analyzing a rate of the first change in weight while the component is moving (Dixon paragraph [0097]).
Claims 187 and 198 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable US Patent Application Publication 2007/0296600 to Dixon et al. (“Dixon”) and US Patent Application Publication 2016/0166453 to Furman et al. (“Furman”), in view of US Patent Application Publication 2017/0143566 to Elku et al. (“Elku”).
Claim 187. The patient support apparatus of claim 181 wherein the controller is adapted to determine a location of the contact with the obstruction by calculating a center of gravity of the first change in the weight, to use a first value for the threshold amount if the location of the contact falls within a first area and to use a second value for the threshold amount if the location of the contact falls within a second area, wherein the first value is different from the second value and the first area is different from the second area (Dixon does not discuss using a center of gravity to detect an obstruction; however Elku discusses this method in at least paragraph [0394]; it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the CG calculation of Elku in order to ensure that the bed of Dixon is stable and to prevent the bed from toppling, as is taught by Elku; regarding a “first area” and a ”second area”, Elku teaches the use of at least three regions or areas in paragraph [0394] and discusses thresholds in paragraph [0393]; Dixon also discusses the use of various thresholds in paragraphs [0091]-[0093]).
Claim 198. The patient support apparatus of claim 180 wherein the controller is further adapted to display a graphic representation of the patient support apparatus on a display, the graphic representation including an arrow indicating which direction the component of the patient support apparatus should be moved in order to move away from the obstruction (Elku provides “graphics on a display, for describing the functions of the buttons or other interface and as well as indicating data related to the patient support” and also teaches obstruction sensors on legs and castor assemblies in Figs. 66A-66C; therefore, Elku makes obvious to “to display a graphic representation of the patient support apparatus on a display”; regarding providing an arrow, one of ordinary skill who has knowledge of the location of an obstruction, and such data is displayed on the user interface, would have known which direction to move the apparatus, and providing an arrow would simply have been an obvious matter of aesthetic design choice, furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide this functionality to the bed of Dixon in order to be able to prevent, diagnose, and/or alleviate a situation in which an obstruction is encountered; it is noted that Dixon also discloses sensors at the corners of the bed in paragraph [0097]).
Discussion of allowable subject matter
Claim 83 is objected to as depending from a rejected claim. Regarding Claim 83, Applicant’s claim limitations are not found in the prior art. Claim 83 is directed toward “a recovery control on the touch screen display” in which the controller moves the component out of contact with the obstruction, and additionally analyzes weight changes to determine if the recovery action was effective. The apparatus additionally compares weight data and does not cause an alarm if the recovery action was effective (“and to not provide the indication to the user if the second change in the weight is substantially equal to, but of opposite sign of, the change in weight”). The prior art of Dixon and Elku do not teach this specific functionality or discuss this feature with the claimed specificity and detail. Dixon does discuss in paragraph [0097] that an output signal that a sensor that “generates a negative value or a greatly reduced weight reading within a short period of time” is indicative of an obstruction, but does not then provide for the claimed limitations of Applicant’s “recovery control”. Therefore, the claimed invention is not found in the prior art, and independent claim 60 would be allowable if amended to include the limitations of claim 83.
Claim 187 is objected to as depending from a rejected claim. Regarding claim 187, Applicant recites limitations directed toward a false detection system to prevent incorrect obstruction determinations, and additionally recites that the system collects and analyzes data collected “to record instances in which actual contact has not occurred, to analyze the instances, and to suggest a different threshold amount to a user in order to reduce a number of the instances in which actual contact has not occurred but the controller has automatically stopped movement of the component.” The combined aggregate of these limitations is not found in the prior art of Dixon, Elku, or Furman, nor is there any other prior art that could be combined with these references in an obvious manner in order to yield the claimed invention. Therefore, the claimed invention is not found in the prior art, and independent claim 180 would be allowable if amended to include the limitations of claims 181 and 183.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MYLES A THROOP whose telephone number is (571)270-5006. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/MYLES A THROOP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights