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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on merits. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS), both filed on 9/4/2025, have been acknowledged by the Office.
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) 1-6, 8-13, and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0259410 to Zerhusen et al. (hereinafter Zerhusen).
Regarding claim 1, Zerhusen teaches: A patient support apparatus (see Abstract: “hospital bed”) comprising:
a support structure (see Fig. 1, frame 20) including a base (see Fig. 1, 28 base frame) arranged for movement along a floor surface (see Fig. 1, base frame 28 has wheels/casters 29) and an intermediate frame (see Fig. 1, upper frame assembly 30) with a patient support deck (see Fig. 1, patient support deck 38) defining a patient support surface for supporting a patient (see Fig. 1, mattress 22 and deck 38 support a patient, see also para [0071]);
a lift mechanism (see Fig. 1, lift frame 34 and lift system 32) interposed between the base and the intermediate frame (see Fig. 1, as shown) for moving the patient support deck relative to the base between a plurality of vertical configurations (see para [0068]);
an input device (see Fig. 1, control panels 66, 67, 68 in various locations) configured to generate an input signal (see paras. [0075-76]);
one or more sensors operable to determine changes in the arrangement of the body of the patient supported on the patient support surface (see Fig. 27, weight/position sensors 70 or sleep state sensors 800, per para [0076]: sensors 70 can be “load cells with strain gages”);
one or more light modules (see Fig. 1 and 27, alert light assembly 100 or Fig. 8: alert light module 160) operably attached to the support structure (see Fig. 1-4, shown on or near foot end 26 of deck 44) and operable to emit light at a first illumination level and at a second illumination level different from the first illumination level (see para [0083-84]: LEDs can either be lit [second illumination level] or not lit [first illumination level] or para [0028, 0081]: green LED and changes to other colors is disclosed); and
a controller (see Fig. 27, control circuitry 72 and microprocessor 74) in communication with the input device, the one or more sensors, and the one or more light modules (see Fig. 27, and para [0089, 0094]), the controller being configured to perform a function of the patient support apparatus in response to receiving the input signal from the input device (see para [0076]: in one example the control panel 68 is used to manage thee scale/patient monitoring system [ppm]), the controller being further configured to control the one or more light modules to change light emission from the first illumination level to the second illumination level in response to predetermined changes in the arrangement of the body of the patient supported on the patient support surface occurring determined by the one or more sensors (see para [0083, 0086]).
Regarding claim 2, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the one or more sensors include a patient sensor (see Fig. 27, weight/position sensors 70 or sleep state sensors 800, per para [0076]: sensors 70 can be “load cells with strain gages”) to detect movement of the patient about the patient support surface towards a pre- exit body position indicative of a pre-exit condition where the patient is attempting to exit the patient support apparatus (see para [0076] which incorporates by reference, U.S. Patent 7,253,366 to Bhai, Abstract: “load cells and a controller for detecting patient movement on, exit from, and impending exit from the hospital bed, including movement across or outside a virtual boundary or region located on the bed. The controller is configured to detect changes in the distribution of patient weight among the load cells”); and wherein the controller is configured to operate the one or more light modules at the second illumination level in response to the patient sensor determining that the patient is in the pre-exit body position (see Fig. 1-2 and para [0086]: zone 101 is associated with “bed exit” – see close up of icon of 101 in Fig. 9 showing a person/patient on the edge and/or exiting a bed surface).
Regarding claim 3, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein the patient sensor is further configured to determine movement of the patient between a repose body position and the pre-exit body position; and wherein the controller is configured to operate the one or more light modules at the first illumination level in response to the patient sensor determining that the patient is in the repose body position (see para [0086]: zone 101 can be illuminated ‘green’ in a satisfactory status [in repose body position] and another color if the patient has moved outside of range of permissible positions).
Regarding claim 4, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein at least one of the one or more light modules is arranged to emit light towards the floor surface adjacent to the base during operation at the second illumination level for facilitating patient egress from the patient support surface when the patient sensor determines that the patient is in the pre-exit body position (see Fig. 20-21, and para [0140-0142]: projection of light images on a floor is disclosed to at least assist/alerting caregivers of an impending bed exit).
Regarding claim 5, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 2, and additionally teaches: wherein at least one of the one or more light modules is arranged to emit light towards the patient support deck during operation at the second illumination level for facilitating patient egress from the patient support surface when the patient sensor determines that the patient is in the pre-exit body position (see Fig. 24-25 and para [0153-157] which emit light towards the patient support deck such as zone 701 which when illuminated may indicate a bed exit or movement away from a satisfactory condition).
Regarding claim 8, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein more light is emitted by the one or more light modules during operation at second illumination level than during operation at the first illumination level (see para [0081, 0083, 0085]: contemplates various colors an “on/off” state, e.g. “turned off altogether” Further para [0163-0164] discuss changing brightness of the illumination based on ambient room light).
Regarding claim 9, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 8, and additionally teaches: wherein the first illumination level is defined as an absence of light emission (see para [0081, 0083, 0085]: contemplates an “on/off” state, e.g. “turned off altogether”).
Regarding claim 10, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein at least one of the one or more light modules is arranged to emit light towards the input device (see Fig. 23 showing a graphical user interface 600 with a similar set of light modules, see para [0149-0150]).
Regarding claim 11, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the input device includes a touchscreen (see Fig. 23, GUI 600 is a “touchscreen display” per para [148]); and wherein at least one of the one or more light modules includes a backlight arranged to emit light through the touchscreen (see Fig. 23, light modules/icons 604,606,608 and use of colors, para [0150]).
Regarding claim 12, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the one or more sensors include a patient sensor to detect movement of the patient about the patient support surface (see Fig. 27, weight/position sensors 70 or sleep state sensors 800, per para [0076]: sensors 70 can be “load cells with strain gages”).
Regarding claim 13, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, and additionally teaches: wherein the patient sensor includes a plurality of load cells operatively attached to the patient support deck (see para [0076]: “load cells”).
Regarding claim 15, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the one or more sensors include a lift sensor (see Fig. 27, lift system sensors 91) to detect movement of the patient support deck between a first vertical configuration and a second vertical configuration (see para [0073, 0076, 0089]); and wherein the controller is configured to operate the one or more light modules at the second illumination level in response to the lift sensor determining that the patient support deck is in the first vertical configuration (see para [0090]: “height monitoring system, zone 103 with illuminating lights, at least amber and green is discussed).
Regarding claim 16, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, and additionally teaches: wherein the patient support deck is arranged closer to the base in the first vertical configuration than in the second vertical configuration (see para [0090]: “lowermost position” as described).
Regarding claim 17, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 15, and additionally teaches: wherein the controller is configured to operate the one or more light modules at the first illumination level in response to the lift sensor determining that the patient support deck is in the second vertical configuration (see para [0090]: “illuminated to a color other than green…when moved out of the lowered position”).
Regarding claim 18, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 1, and additionally teaches: wherein the patient support deck includes a deck section arranged for movement relative to the intermediate frame between a plurality of section positions (See Fig. 1, head section 40 and associated ‘head of bed’ angle per para [0087]); wherein the one or more sensors include a deck sensor (see Fig. 27, head angle sensor 88) to detect movement of the deck section between a first section position and a second section position (see para [0087]: angle sensor 88 detects angle of the head section 40); and wherein the controller is configured to operate the one or more light modules at the second illumination level in response to the deck sensor determining that the deck section is in the second section position (see para [0088] and associated zone 102 indicia).
Regarding claim 19, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 18, and additionally teaches: wherein the deck section is further defined as a back section; wherein the first section position is further defined as a raised fowler position; and wherein the second section position is further defined as a flat position (see para [0087-0088]: head section can be set to be flat or raised/fowler, see Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 20, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 18, and additionally teaches: wherein the controller is configured to operate the one or more light modules at the first illumination level in response to the deck sensor determining that the deck section is in the first section position (see para [0088]).
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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0259410 to Zerhusen in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0140307 to Brosnan et al. (hereinafter Brosnan).
Regarding claim 14, Zerhusen teaches all the limitations as described in the rejection of claim 12, however, it does not explicitly teach: wherein the patient sensor includes one or more of an optical sensor and a camera.
Brosnan teaches: wherein the patient sensor includes one or more of an optical sensor and a camera (see claims 3 or 16: “a monitoring device selected from… an optical sensor…”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected an optical sensor of Brosnan and incorporate it into patient sensor of Zerhusen since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions (Brosnan describes a list of exemplary types of patient monitoring sensors in claim 3 | 16 | 22) to the recognized need (to sense/predict movement or location of a patient on a support surface) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because a choice between the known and available sensor types is a limited number of known suitable options making it obvious to try those options.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the closest prior art of record does not teach wherein among a plurality of separate light modules on a patient support, the controller is configured to change operation of the light modules from a first illumination level to a second illumination level and select and illuminate whichever of the plurality of light modules is closest in proximity to a patient located on the patient support as determined by a patient sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited patents show patient support devices with alerting lights and status indication with similar properties to the claimed invention. They show the general state of the art and are of general relevance with respect to the claimed subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R HARE whose telephone number is (571)272-4420. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at 571-272-8525. 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.
Sincerely,
/DAVID R HARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3673
9/2/2026
Prosecution Insights