Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Objections
Claim 29 is objected to because of the following informalities: Please replace “light” in line 5 of the claim with —lying—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 11-29 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 2003/0052787) in view of Menkedick (US 2005/0172405). Zerhusen incorporates by reference Application No. 09/849,850 (see para. [0001]), now US PG-Pub 2002/0044059 attributed to Reeder. All references to the incorporated reference are indicated below by “Reeder”.
Regarding Claim 11, Zerhusen discloses a hospital bed (500) comprising
a base frame (see Fig. 34),
a set of casters (see Fig. 34) coupled to the base frame,
an upper frame assembly including a patient support deck having a plurality of movable deck sections (head up/down, knee up/down, see para. [0113]), the movable deck sections being movable to change a position at which a patient is supported by the patient support deck (see Fig. 55),
a plurality of motors operable to move at least some of the movable deck sections (inherent aspect of the touch screen operating different sections of the bed),
a lift system operable to raise, lower, and tilt the upper frame assembly relative to the base frame (see Fig. 55 and para. [0113]),
a set of barriers (502) coupled to the upper frame assembly,
control circuitry (see Figs. 42-63 and para. [0110]) carried by at least one of the base frame and the upper frame assembly, and
a graphical user interface (GUI) (628) coupled to the control circuitry, the control circuitry being configured to command the GUI to display at least one input (see Fig. 43 and 644) and that is used by a caregiver to chart data into an electronic medical record (EMR) of the patient supported by the patient support deck (see para. [0117]). Zerhusen fails to disclose at least some of the barriers being movable relative to the upper frame assembly between a raised position and a lowered position. Menkedick teaches at least some barriers (20 and 22) being movable relative to a upper frame assembly between a raised position (see Fig. 46) and a lowered position (see Fig. 47). Zerhusen and Menkedick 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 made to modify the hospital bed of Zerhusen with the movable barriers of Menkedick. The motivation would have been to provide a patient with an easier path to exit the bed, thus increasing convenience.
Regarding Claim 12, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry requires verification of the caregiver's identity prior to sending the data to an EMR system for charting in the patient's EMR (see para. [0111], [0117] [0119], and [0173-0175]).
Regarding Claim 13, Zerhusen fails to disclose wherein the control circuitry displays a screen on the GUI requiring the caregiver to enter a personal identification number (PN) in response to the at least one input being selected and entry of the PIN by the caregiver provides the verification required by the control circuitry prior to sending data to the EMR system, but instead discloses the use of a password (see para. [0173]). Examiner takes Official Notice that the use of PINs are well-known and ubiquitous throughout the art. Substituting a password for a PIN is obvious and well within ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 14, Zerhusen discloses a card reader coupled to the control circuitry, the control circuitry requiring the caregiver to engage the card reader with an identification (ID) card in response to the at least one input being used and engaging the card reader with the ID card by the caregiver provides the verification required by the control circuitry prior to sending data to the EMR system (see para. [0083] and [0111]).
Regarding Claim 15, Zerhusen discloses a wireless tag reader (625) coupled to the control circuitry, the control circuitry determining whether a wireless tag assigned to the caregiver is in communication with the wireless tag reader in response to the at least one input being selected, and communication between the wireless tag and the wireless tag reader provides the verification required by the control circuitry prior to sending data to the EMR system (see para. [0111]).
Regarding Claim 16, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a bed status charting icon (644) that is selectable to display current bed status data that the caregiver has the option of charting to the patient's EMR (Zerhusen: see para. [0111]; Reeder: Fig. 34 and para. [0121]).
Regarding Claim 17, Zerhusen discloses wherein the selection of the bed status charting icon results in at least one of the following bed status data being displayed on the GUI: an angle of a head section of the patient support structure, whether or not caster brakes of the patient support structure are set, whether or not an upper frame of the patient support structure is in a low position relative to a base of the patient support structure, whether a patient position monitoring system of the hospital bed is armed, and/or whether a head of bed monitoring system of the hospital bed is armed (Zerhusen: see para. [0074 and 0113]; Reeder: see para. [0121]).
Regarding Claim 18, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a chart button (644) that is selected to send the current bed status data to the patient's EMR (Reeder: see para. [0121]).
Regarding Claim 19, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a chart button that (644). Zerhusen fails to disclose when the chart button is selected, results in the GUI displaying a confirmation screen which the caregiver uses to confirm that the current bed status data is to be charted to the patient's EMR. Examiner takes Official Notice that confirmation screens are well-known within the art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a confirmation screen as required by claim 19 for the purpose of preventing erroneous/unnecessary entries into a patient’s chart.
Regarding Claim 20, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a history button (Reeder: see Fig. 47A “HISTORY” tab) that is selected to access a history of bed status data that has been charted to the patient's EMR previously.
Regarding Claim 21, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a vital signs charting icon (644) that is selectable to display a patient information screen that the caregiver uses to enter the patient's vital signs data for subsequent charting to the patient's EMR (Reeder: see para. [0095] and [0120]).
Regarding Claim 22, Zerhusen discloses wherein the patient information screen includes one or more fields for entering at least one of the following patient's vital signs data, respectively: heart rate, respiration rate, blood pressure, pulse oximetry, and/or temperature (Reeder: see para. [0092] and [0134]) .
Regarding Claim 23, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a chart button that is selected to send the patient's vital signs data to the patient's EMR (Reeder: see para. [0134].
Regarding Claim 24, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a history button that is selected to access a history of the patient's vital signs data that has been charted to the patient's EMR previously (Reeder: see Fig. 47A).
Regarding Claim 25, Zerhusen discloses one or more vital signs sensors carried by the upper frame assembly (Reeder: 660, see Fig. 42) and wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a vital signs charting icon that is selectable to display a patient information screen that the caregiver uses to view the patient's vital signs data sensed by the one or more vital signs sensors (Reeder: see Fig. 47A).
Regarding Claim 26, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a chart button (644) that is selected to send the patient's vital signs data to the patient's EMR (Reeder: see Fig. 47A).
Regarding Claim 27, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a history button (Reeder: see Fig. 47A) that is selected to access a history of the patient's vital signs data that has been charted to the patient's EMR previously.
Regarding Claim 28, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a weigh patient (640) button that is selected to command the control circuitry to weigh the patient supported on the patient support structure and to display a charting icon that the caregiver has the option of selecting to initiate the charting of the patient's weight to the patient's EMR (see Fig. 46).
Regarding Claim 29, Zerhusen discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a patient activity icon that is selectable to display an activity screen (see Fig. 47) having a menu of patient activities that the caregiver has the option of selecting for charting to the patient's EMR, and wherein the menu of patient activities includes at least one of the following activities: whether the patient is lying on their back, whether the patient is light on their right side, whether the patient is lying on their left side, whether the patient has moved out of the hospital bed and is sitting on a chair, and/or whether the patient support deck has been moved to a chair position to support the patient in a sitting position (669).
Claim 30 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zerhusen (US 2003/0052787) in view of Menkedick (US 2005/0172405) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Rosow (US 2010/0228565).
Regarding Claim 30, Zerhusen fails to disclose wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a patient association screen having at least one user input for selecting a patient to be associated with the hospital bed. Rosow teaches wherein the control circuitry is configured to command the GUI to display a patient association screen having at least one user input for selecting a patient to be associated with the hospital bed (see Fig. 12, 13, and para. [0089-0091]). Zerhusen and Rosow 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 made to modify the hospital bed of Zerhusen with patient association screen of Rosow. The motivation would have been to assist a caregiver in assigning a patient to a an appropriate bed in a medical facility, thus improving efficiency.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 11-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 9,492,341. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent fully disclose the claims of the instant application. The patent claims are more specific than those of the instant application, e.g. Claim 1 of the patent provides for additional structure while also claiming the structure required by Claim 1 of the instant application. Therefore, the claims are not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kummer (US 5,771,511) discloses a communication network for a hospital bed.
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