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 § 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) 43-44 and 46-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Receveur (EP 3975203).
Regarding Claim 43, Receveur discloses a patient support apparatus (30) comprising:
a support surface adapted to support a patient (see Fig. 1);
a network transceiver (26) adapted to communicate with a healthcare facility computer network; and
a controller (34) adapted to send a first message to the healthcare facility computer network, wherein the first message indicates a first condition and the first condition includes at least one of the following (see para. [009]): an incorrect passcode was entered into a control panel on the patient support apparatus; a correct passcode was entered into the control panel (see para. [0009]); a window of time since any control panel on the patient support apparatus was last used has expired; a microphone (48) on the patient support apparatus detected a sound level exceeding a threshold (see para. [0223-0225]); the microphone on the patient support apparatus detected a keyword (see Fig. 15); a block control was activated on the patient support apparatus wherein the block control prevents access to a plurality of functions until the correct passcode is entered; an agitation level of the patient onboard the patient support apparatus; a patient activation of a nurse call control onboard the patient support apparatus (see para. [0112]); a restraint status indicative of whether the patient is currently restrained or not; a restraint cover status indicative of whether a restraint attachment on the patient support apparatus is currently covered or not; or movement of the patient support apparatus as detected by an accelerometer.
Regarding Claim 44, Receveur discloses wherein the controller is adapted to send a second message to the healthcare facility computer network, wherein the second message indicates a second condition and the second condition includes at least one other of the following: an incorrect passcode was entered into the control panel; the correct passcode was entered into the control panel (see para. [0009]); the window of time expired; the microphone on the patient support apparatus detected a sound level exceeding the threshold (see para. [0223-0225]); the microphone on the patient support apparatus detected the keyword (see Fig. 15); the block control was activated on the patient support apparatus; the agitation level of the patient onboard the patient support apparatus; the patient activation of the nurse call control onboard the patient support apparatus (see para. [0112]); the restraint status indicative of whether the patient is currently restrained or not; the restraint cover status indicative of whether the restraint attachment on the patient support apparatus is currently covered or not; or movement of the patient support apparatus as detected by the accelerometer.
Regarding Claim 46, wherein the first message indicates a sound level exceeding the threshold was detected by the microphone (see para. [0223-0225]).
Regarding Claim 47, Receveur discloses wherein the first message indicates the keyword was detected by the microphone (see Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 48, Receveur discloses wherein the controller is further adapted to allow a user to change the keyword (see para. [0179], “unique name”).
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 45, and 49-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (EP 3975203) in view of Ferreira (US 2021/0264017).
Regarding Claim 1, Receveur discloses a patient support apparatus (30) comprising:
a support surface (see Fig. 1) adapted to support a patient;
a control panel (“display screen”) adapted to allow access to a plurality of functions of the patient support apparatus for a window of time after a correct passcode is entered into the control panel (see para. [0009]);
a network transceiver (26) adapted to communicate with a healthcare facility computer network (60); and
a controller (34) adapted to send a first message to the healthcare facility computer network when the correct passcode is entered into the control panel (see para. [0009] describing the server allowing access based on a correct PIN).
Receveur fails to disclose to disallow access to the plurality of functions after the window of time expires and a controller adapted to send a second message to the healthcare facility computer network when the window of time expires. Ferreira teaches disallowing access to the plurality of functions after a window of time expires (see para. [0029], “expiration information 134 may indicate the expiration of temporary password 132”) and a controller (110) adapted to send a second message to the network when the window of time expires (see para. [0029]-[0033]). Ferreira is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, i.e. computer security. Passwords protecting unauthorized access to networking systems are ubiquitous and the inventor is concerned with the problem of unauthorized access or control of “the scale system, motion controls, lockouts, and/or the settings” and other functions as detailed in Applicants’ specification in para. [00140]. A person of ordinary skill would have consulted Ferreira and applied its teachings when faced with the problem that the inventor was trying to solve. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the controller/control panel of Receveur with the teachings of Ferreira. The motivation would have been to prevent unauthorized access after the patient support was unlocked by a caregiver.
Regarding Claim 2, Ferreira teaches wherein the controller is further adapted to send a third message to the healthcare facility computer network when an incorrect passcode is entered into the control panel, the third message indicating that an incorrect passcode was entered into the control panel (see para. [0028-0029], “In response to a failed authentication, server 104 may notify client device 102 of the failed authentication and deny request 128”).
Regarding Claim 3, Receveur discloses wherein the control panel includes a touchscreen and the control panel is adapted to display a passcode entry screen on the touchscreen (see para. [0123]).
Regarding Claim 4, Receveur discloses a microphone (48), wherein the controller is adapted to send a third message to the healthcare facility computer network when a sound level detected by the microphone exceeds a threshold (see para. [0223-0225]).
Regarding Claim 5, Receveur discloses a microphone (48), wherein the controller is further adapted to perform speech recognition on sounds detected by the microphone and to send a third message to the healthcare facility computer network if the controller recognizes speech of a keyword (see Fig. 15).
Regarding Claim 6, Receveur discloses wherein the controller is further adapted to send the third message to the healthcare facility computer network if the controller recognizes speech of any one or more of a plurality of keywords (see Fig. 15 and para. [0226]).
Regarding Claim 7, Receveur discloses wherein the controller is further adapted to allow a user to change the keyword (see para. [0179], “unique name”).
Regarding Claim 8, Ferreira teaches wherein the window of time is defined as a set time period during which the control panel is not used (see para. [0029]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 9, Receveur as modified teaches a plurality of additional control panels (Receveur: 110, 22, 22’) and the window of time is defined as a set time period during which neither the control panel nor any of the plurality of additional control panels are used (Ferreira: see para. [0029-0033]).
Regarding Claim 45, Receveur discloses wherein the control panel is adapted to allow access to a plurality of functions of the patient support apparatus for the window of time after the correct passcode is entered into the control panel (see para. [0132]), and wherein the control panel includes a touchscreen and the control panel is adapted to display a passcode entry screen on the touchscreen (see para. [0123]). Receveur fails to disclose to disallow access to the plurality of functions after the window of time expires. As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 above, Ferreira teaches this aspect in para. [0029-[0033]. The same reasons for modifying Receveur as stated in the rejection of claim 1 apply to the rejection of claim 45.
Regarding Claim 49, Ferreira teaches wherein the first message indicates the window of time expired (see para. [0029]-[0033])
Regarding Claim 50, Ferreira teaches wherein the window of time is defined as a set time period during which the control panel is not used (see para. [0029]-[0033]).
Regarding Claim 51, , Receveur as modified teaches a plurality of additional control panels (Receveur: 110, 22, 22’) and the window of time is defined as a set time period during which neither the control panel nor any of the plurality of additional control panels are used (Ferreira: see para. [0029-0033]).
Claim(s) 10 and 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Receveur (EP 3975203) in view of Ferreira (US 2021/0264017) as applied to claims 1 and 45 above, and further in view of Connell (US 2013/0318720).
Regarding Claim 10, Receveur fails to disclose wherein the control panel includes a block control and, in response to a user activating the block control, the window of time expires and the control panel is adapted to block access to the plurality of functions. Connell teaches wherein the control panel includes a block control (1146 and 1166) and, in response to a user activating the block control, the window of time expires and the control panel is adapted to block access to the plurality of functions (see para. [0109-0111] and [0116]). Receveur and Connell are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, i.e. patient supports. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the patient support of Receveur with the block control of Connell. The motivation would have been to further prevent unauthorized access should a caregiver walk away from the patient support after inputting commands.
Regarding Claim 52, for reasons stated in the above rejection of Claim 10, Receveur as modified by Connell teaches the required limitations of claim 52.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC J KURILLA whose telephone number is (571)270-7294. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7AM-6PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/ERIC J KURILLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights