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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph requirement as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/833,927, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Originally filed claim 3 of the instant invention recites “The system of claim 1, wherein the unique device credentials include a combination of the serial number and a model number of the hospital bed”. However, as resolved during the prosecution of Application 17/833,927 in the Office Action dated August 25, 2025, the application does not have support for “the unique device credentials include a combination of the serial number and a model number of the hospital bed”. Paragraphs 0012 and 0044 of both applications provide support unique device credentials and device specific credentials that can consist of a serial number, but do not support the unique device credentials consisting of both a serial number and model number of the bed. There is no indication of the combination that can be found in the specification.
As such, the Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under the 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph requirement. Since the claim as originally filed are part of the specification, the applicant does not have support for unique device credentials include a combination of the serial number and a model number in the instant application but the instant application is granted a priority date as of the filing date of the instant applicant which is November 13, 2025.
Applicant states that this application is a continuation or divisional application of the prior-filed application. A continuation or divisional application cannot include new matter. Applicant is required to delete the benefit claim or change the relationship (continuation or divisional application) to continuation-in-part because this application contains the following matter not disclosed in the prior-filed application:
Merely cancelling the above identified claims would not be sufficient to correct the priority issue. As the originally filed claims are considered to be part of the specification, cancelling the claims would not remove the subject matter from the applicant’s specification. Therefore, the specification would still be considered to contain new matter by virtue of the originally filed claims. As such, the instant applicant cannot maintain a relationship of “continuation” and the applicant must change the relationship to “continuation-in-part”. See MPEP 211.05.
Note
The terms “platform” and “system” are not described or defined, but since they are for communication (and communicating the data indicated), they are interpreted as being a computer. Since they are a computers with no description of being anything else, they are interpreted as merely being a generic or general-purpose computer. Any traversal of this interpretation will be required to be made at the next response so that prosecution may continue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, claims 1-20 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is representative of the inventive concept and recites:
A system for remote diagnostics of medical devices in a healthcare network, the system comprising: a hospital bed having a plurality of components including a patient surface,
at least one actuator configured to articulate the patient surface,
a weigh scale configured to detect a weight of a patient positioned on the patient surface,
and at least one sensor configured to detect a position of the patient on the hospital bed, the hospital bed having a serial number;
and a remote service platform in communication with the hospital bed and located remotely from a healthcare facility where the hospital bed is located;
wherein the hospital bed is configured to send a registration request to the remote service platform, wherein the registration request includes common authentication credentials and the serial number of the hospital bed,
wherein, after recognizing the serial number of the hospital bed, the remote service platform is configured to return unique device credentials to the hospital bed, wherein, during subsequent connections to the remote service platform,
the hospital bed is configured to utilize the unique device credentials to connect the hospital bed to the remote service platform,
wherein the remote service system is configured to identify the hospital bed based on the unique device credentials and
to initiate repair of at least one of the plurality of components of the hospital bed over the remote service system.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of identifying) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “device”, “system”, “sensor”, “network”, and “platform”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 1, but for the system language, the claim encompasses the user collecting and analyzing data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. The recitation of generic computer components/functions such as detecting, initiating, and articulating also covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. the computer and user interface), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”. The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Dependent claims 2-20 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “device”, “system”, “sensor”, “network”, “platform”, “in communication with the hospital bed and located remotely from a healthcare facility where the hospital bed is located”, “to send a registration request to the remote service platform, wherein the registration request includes common authentication credentials and the serial number of the hospital bed”, “to return unique device credentials to the hospital bed, wherein, during subsequent connections to the remote service platform”, and “to connect the hospital bed to the remote service platform”.
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a “device”, “system”, “sensor”, “network”, and “platform”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “in communication with the hospital bed and located remotely from a healthcare facility where the hospital bed is located”, “to send a registration request to the remote service platform, wherein the registration request includes common authentication credentials and the serial number of the hospital bed”, “to return unique device credentials to the hospital bed, wherein, during subsequent connections to the remote service platform”, and “to connect the hospital bed to the remote service platform”.
Dependent claims 8-12 recite “software update”
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a “software update”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 13-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those already
recited in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 8-12, hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or machine learning model or improves any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A computer in claim 1; amount to no
more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional
limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which amount to
elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular
fields as demonstrated by the recitation of:
Sending, which refers to moving digital information from one device to another (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Returning, which refers to moving digital information from one device to another (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Connecting which refers to moving digital information from one device to another (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 13-20 do not include any additional elements beyond those already
recited in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 8-12. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not
already recited in independent claim 1, hence do not amount to “significantly more” than
the abstract idea.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 13-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan(US20160140307A1) in view of Coghlan(US20140115676A1) and Becker(US20190244707A1).
Claim 1
Brosnan discloses:
A system for remote diagnostics of medical devices in a healthcare network, the system comprising: a hospital bed(Para 0019, Brosnan discloses a hospital bed) having a plurality of components including a patient surface(Para 0062, Brosnan discloses a deck which supports the patient support surface), at least one actuator configured to articulate the patient surface(Para 0067, Brosnan discloses a plurality of actuators), a weigh scale configured to detect a weight of a patient positioned on the patient surface(Para 0126, Brosnan discloses a patient scale system to detect patient weight), and at least one sensor configured to detect a position of the patient on the hospital bed(Para 0095, Brosnan discloses a sensor detecting patient position), the hospital bed having a serial number(Para 0112, Brosnan discloses serial number); and a remote service platform in communication with the hospital bed and located remotely from a healthcare facility where the hospital bed is located(Para 0096, Brosnan discloses remote healthcare facility network in communication with the patient bed);
Brosnan does not explicitly disclose:
the hospital bed is configured to send a registration request to the remote service platform, wherein the registration request includes common authentication credentials and the serial number of the hospital bed, wherein, after recognizing the serial number of the hospital bed, the remote service platform is configured to return unique device credentials to the hospital bed
the remote service system is configured to identify the hospital bed based on the unique device credentials and to initiate repair of at least one of the plurality of components of the hospital bed over the remote service system
Coghlan discloses:
the hospital bed is configured to send a registration request to the remote service platform(Para 0007, Coghlan discloses a device sending registration data to an authentication system as a request), wherein the registration request includes common authentication credentials and the serial number of the hospital bed(Para 0119, Coghlan discloses devices allowing application to read a physical serial number), wherein, after recognizing the serial number of the hospital bed, the remote service platform is configured to return unique device credentials to the hospital bed(Para 0016, Coghlan discloses a system generating a unique subscriber certificate for a device and returns it to the device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add bed is configured to send a registration request to the remote service platform, wherein the registration request includes common authentication credentials and the serial number of the hospital bed, wherein, after recognizing the serial number of the hospital bed, the remote service platform is configured to return unique device credentials to the hospital bed, as taught by Coghlan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means for a medical device to establish a secure connection in a medical setting to prevent data loss to maintain patient privacy, but in this case, for a device authentication method(Para 0002, Coghlan discloses: “There are various constraints which arise from use of some mobile devices, including some smartphones. For example, at present some mobile devices are not programmed to perform Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) authentication, and indeed some Wi-Fi networks also do not support EAP.”).
Coghlan does not explicitly disclose:
the remote service system is configured to identify the hospital bed based on the unique device credentials and to initiate repair of at least one of the plurality of components of the hospital bed over the remote service system
Becker discloses:
the remote service system is configured to identify the hospital bed based on the unique device credentials(Para 0107, Becker discloses recognizing a bed based on a unique identifier, and subsequently using the identifier to identify the bed) and to initiate repair of at least one of the plurality of components of the hospital bed over the remote service system(Para 0095, Brosnan discloses maintenance scheduling).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add to identify the hospital bed based on the unique device credentials and to initiate repair of at least one of the plurality of components of the hospital bed over the remote service system, as taught by Becker. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to monitor and maintain a patient bed to prevent any issues that may impact care provided to a patient, but in this case, for an equipment management system(Para 0003, Becker discloses: “Tasks associated with the management of these devices, such as maintaining an accurate inventory, scheduling the use of the devices, locating the devices, repairing and/or servicing the devices, and other tasks) present substantial challenges to the administrators of the medical facility.”).
Claim 3
Brosnan discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the (Para 0112, Brosnan discloses serial number) and a model number(Para 0112, Brosnan discloses model number of bed) of the hospital bed.
Brosnan does not explicitly disclose:
unique device credentials
Coghlan discloses:
unique device credentials(Para 0016, Coghlan discloses a system generating a unique subscriber certificate for a device and returns it to the device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add unique device credentials, as taught by Coghlan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means for a medical device to establish a secure connection in a medical setting to prevent data loss to maintain patient privacy, but in this case, for a device authentication method(Para 0002, Coghlan discloses: “There are various constraints which arise from use of some mobile devices, including some smartphones. For example, at present some mobile devices are not programmed to perform Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) authentication, and indeed some Wi-Fi networks also do not support EAP.”).
Claim 4
Brosnan discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the hospital bed is configured to send one or more error codes to the remote service platform(Para 0121, Brosnan discloses a maintenance alert for patient bed).
Claim 5
Brosnan discloses:
The system of claim 4, wherein the remote service platform is configured to initiate repair of the at least one of the plurality of components by opening a service order(Para 0095, Brosnan discloses maintenance scheduling)
Brosnan does not explicitly disclose:
error codes(Para 0059, Becker discloses error codes requiring service)
unique device credentials
Coghlan discloses:
unique device credentials(Para 0016, Coghlan discloses a system generating a unique subscriber certificate for a device and returns it to the device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add unique device credentials, as taught by Coghlan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means for a medical device to establish a secure connection in a medical setting to prevent data loss to maintain patient privacy, but in this case, for a device authentication method(Para 0002, Coghlan discloses: “There are various constraints which arise from use of some mobile devices, including some smartphones. For example, at present some mobile devices are not programmed to perform Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) authentication, and indeed some Wi-Fi networks also do not support EAP.”).
Coghlan does not explicitly disclose:
error codes
Becker discloses:
error codes(Para 0059, Becker discloses error codes requiring service)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add error codes, as taught by Becker. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to monitor and maintain a patient bed to prevent any issues that may impact care provided to a patient, but in this case, for an equipment management system(Para 0003, Becker discloses: “Tasks associated with the management of these devices, such as maintaining an accurate inventory, scheduling the use of the devices, locating the devices, repairing and/or servicing the devices, and other tasks) present substantial challenges to the administrators of the medical facility.”).
Claim 6
Brosnan discloses:
The system of claim 5, wherein the remote service platform is configured to identify one or more parts necessary to repair the hospital(Para 0121, Brosnan discloses identifying actuators of a bed that need repair) based on the one or more
Brosnan does not explicitly disclose:
error codes
unique device credentials
Coghlan discloses:
unique device credentials(Para 0016, Coghlan discloses a system generating a unique subscriber certificate for a device and returns it to the device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add unique device credentials, as taught by Coghlan. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means for a medical device to establish a secure connection in a medical setting to prevent data loss to maintain patient privacy, but in this case, for a device authentication method(Para 0002, Coghlan discloses: “There are various constraints which arise from use of some mobile devices, including some smartphones. For example, at present some mobile devices are not programmed to perform Extensible Authentication Protocol (EAP) authentication, and indeed some Wi-Fi networks also do not support EAP.”).
Coghlan does not explicitly disclose:
error codes
Becker discloses:
error codes(Para 0059, Becker discloses error codes requiring service)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add error codes, as taught by Becker. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to monitor and maintain a patient bed to prevent any issues that may impact care provided to a patient, but in this case, for an equipment management system(Para 0003, Becker discloses: “Tasks associated with the management of these devices, such as maintaining an accurate inventory, scheduling the use of the devices, locating the devices, repairing and/or servicing the devices, and other tasks) present substantial challenges to the administrators of the medical facility.”).
Claim 7
Brosnan and Coghlan do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 5, where the remote service platform is configured to notify a technician of the service order.
Becker discloses:
The system of claim 5, where the remote service platform is configured to notify a technician of the service order(Para 0186, Becker discloses notifying a technician when a service request is filed).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add to notify a technician of the service order, as taught by Becker. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to communicate the need to maintain a patient bed so that repairs can be made for any issues that may impact care provided to a patient, but in this case, for an equipment management system(Para 0003, Becker discloses: “Tasks associated with the management of these devices, such as maintaining an accurate inventory, scheduling the use of the devices, locating the devices, repairing and/or servicing the devices, and other tasks) present substantial challenges to the administrators of the medical facility.”).
Claim 13
Brosnan discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the hospital bed is configured to store data related to hospital bed events(Para 0124, Brosnan discloses the storage of data to allow studies).
Claim 14
Brosnan discloses:
The system of claim 13, wherein the hospital bed events include at least one of user alarms, change of bed position, user input actions, connectivity events, bed errors, change in patient position and weight, run time of components(Para 0121 Brosnan discloses an actuator event which indicates bed usage), surface state, nurse call status, battery power status, and battery run time.
Claim 16
Brosnan discloses:
The system of claim 13, wherein the data related to hospital bed events is transmitted to the remote service platform after a predetermined number of hospital bed events(Para 0121, Brosnan discloses the generation of an alert when a threshold of actuator events (bed usage) exceeds a threshold).
Claim 17
Brosnan and Coghlan do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 13, wherein the data related to hospital bed events is transmitted to the remote service platform when an error code is transmitted to the remote service platform.
Becker discloses:
The system of claim 13, wherein the data related to hospital bed events is transmitted to the remote service platform when an error code is transmitted to the remote service platform(Para 0045, Becker discloses analysis of usage, repair, and error data).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add data related to hospital bed events is transmitted to the remote service platform when an error code is transmitted, as taught by Becker. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to supplement an error code with data to better identify the cause and solution to the issue, but in this case, for an equipment management system(Para 0003, Becker discloses: “Tasks associated with the management of these devices, such as maintaining an accurate inventory, scheduling the use of the devices, locating the devices, repairing and/or servicing the devices, and other tasks) present substantial challenges to the administrators of the medical facility.”).
Claim 19
Brosnan and Coghlan do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 17, wherein the data related to hospital bed events includes data related to hospital bed events that occurred within a range of about 1 hour to about 2 hours prior to the error code.
Becker discloses:
The system of claim 17, wherein the data related to hospital bed events includes data related to hospital bed events that occurred within a range of about 1 hour to about 2 hours prior(Para 0065, Becker discloses searching database for data in a certain timeframe) to the error code(Para 0059, Becker discloses error codes requiring service).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add data related to hospital bed events includes data related to hospital bed events that occurred within a range of about 1 hour to about 2 hours prior to the error code, as taught by Becker. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to supplement an error code with data to better identify the cause and solution to the issue, but in this case, for an equipment management system(Para 0003, Becker discloses: “Tasks associated with the management of these devices, such as maintaining an accurate inventory, scheduling the use of the devices, locating the devices, repairing and/or servicing the devices, and other tasks) present substantial challenges to the administrators of the medical facility.”).
Claim 20
Brosnan and Coghlan do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 17, wherein the data related to hospital bed events includes data related to approximately 50-100 device events prior to the error code.
Becker discloses:
The system of claim 17, wherein the data related to hospital bed events includes data related to approximately 50-100 device events(Para 0065, Becker discloses a database with logs of previous sets of data) prior to the error code(Para 0059, Becker discloses error codes requiring service).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add data related to hospital bed events includes data related to approximately 50-100 device events, as taught by Becker. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to supplement an error code with data to better identify the cause and solution to the issue, but in this case, for an equipment management system(Para 0003, Becker discloses: “Tasks associated with the management of these devices, such as maintaining an accurate inventory, scheduling the use of the devices, locating the devices, repairing and/or servicing the devices, and other tasks) present substantial challenges to the administrators of the medical facility.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan(US20160140307A1)
In view of Coghlan(US20140115676A1), Becker(US20190244707A1), and Logue(US20140089671A1).
Claim 2
Brosnan, Coghlan, and Becker do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein, after receiving the unique device credentials, the hospital bed disconnects from the remote service platform and then reconnects to the remote service platform using the unique device credentials.
Logue discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein, after receiving the unique device credentials, the hospital bed disconnects from the remote service platform and then reconnects to the remote service platform using the unique device credentials(Para 0447, Logue discloses a device disconnecting from a server and uses credentials to reconnect).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add hospital bed disconnects from the remote service platform and then reconnects to the remote service platform using the unique device credentials, as taught by Logue. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to ensure a secure connection for confidential data transfer when a medical device logs into a patient care system, but in this case, for an authentication method for facilitating communications amongst devices(Para 0003, Logue discloses: “With the increasing use of mobile devices and cloud-based computing, and the increasing desire to provide remote access and control capabilities in such environments, techniques for synchronizing data across multiple devices are becoming increasingly important.”).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan(US20160140307A1)
In view of Coghlan(US20140115676A1), Becker(US20190244707A1), and Stender(US20070027506A1).
Claim 8
Brosnan, Coghlan, and Becker do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the hospital bed is configured to request a software update from the remote service platform.
Stender discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the hospital bed is configured to request a software update from the remote service platform(Figure 2, Stender discloses the request of a software update).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add to request a software update, as taught by Stender. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to ensure that the software is updated on medical devices that involve patient health, but in this case, for a system for remote software updating of a medical device(Para 0002, Stender discloses: “Currently, the central server and the country-specific server are automatically notified when a software update of a medical device is needed. However, there is no automatic notification to the central server and the country-specific server after an attempt has been made to install the software update on the medical device.”).
Claim 9
Brosnan, Coghlan, and Becker do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 8, wherein the remote service platform is configured to send the software update to the hospital bed.
Stender discloses:
The system of claim 8, wherein the remote service platform is configured to send the software update to the hospital bed(Figure 2, Stender discloses sending a software update to a medical device).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add to send the software update to the hospital bed, as taught by Stender. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to ensure that the software is updated on medical devices that involve patient health, but in this case, for a system for remote software updating of a medical device(Para 0002, Stender discloses: “Currently, the central server and the country-specific server are automatically notified when a software update of a medical device is needed. However, there is no automatic notification to the central server and the country-specific server after an attempt has been made to install the software update on the medical device.”).
Claim 10
Brosnan, Coghlan, and Becker do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 9, wherein the remote service platform is configured to send the software update to a plurality of medical devices that includes the hospital bed.
Stender discloses:
The system of claim 9, wherein the remote service platform is configured to send the software update to a plurality of medical devices that includes the hospital bed(Para 0013, Stender discloses sending a software update to a medical device).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add to send the software update to a plurality of medical devices that includes the hospital bed, as taught by Stender. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to ensure that the software is updated on medical devices that involve patient health, but in this case, for a system for remote software updating of a medical device(Para 0002, Stender discloses: “Currently, the central server and the country-specific server are automatically notified when a software update of a medical device is needed. However, there is no automatic notification to the central server and the country-specific server after an attempt has been made to install the software update on the medical device.”).
Claim 11
Brosnan, Coghlan, and Becker do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 10, wherein the software update is applied to the hospital bed by a technician at the hospital bed.
Stender discloses:
The system of claim 10, wherein the software update is applied to the hospital bed by a technician at the hospital bed(Para 0013, Stender discloses manual installation of a software update to a medical device).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add software update is applied to the hospital bed by a technician at the hospital bed, as taught by Stender. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to ensure that the software is updated on medical devices that involve patient health, but in this case, for a system for remote software updating of a medical device(Para 0002, Stender discloses: “Currently, the central server and the country-specific server are automatically notified when a software update of a medical device is needed. However, there is no automatic notification to the central server and the country-specific server after an attempt has been made to install the software update on the medical device.”).
Claim 12
Brosnan, Coghlan, and Becker do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 1, wherein the remote service platform is configured to determine periodically whether the hospital bed requires a software update.
Stender discloses:
The system of claim 1, wherein the remote service platform is configured to determine periodically whether the hospital bed requires a software update(Para 0010, Stender discloses a server containing information on the necessity of software updates for medical devices).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add to determine periodically whether the hospital bed requires a software update, as taught by Stender. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to ensure that the software is updated on medical devices that involve patient health, but in this case, for a system for remote software updating of a medical device(Para 0002, Stender discloses: “Currently, the central server and the country-specific server are automatically notified when a software update of a medical device is needed. However, there is no automatic notification to the central server and the country-specific server after an attempt has been made to install the software update on the medical device.”).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan(US20160140307A1)
In view of Coghlan(US20140115676A1), Becker(US20190244707A1), and Fink(US20080221751A1).
Claim 18
Brosnan, Coghlan, and Becker do not explicitly disclose:
The system of claim 17, wherein the data related to hospital bed events is stored until the error code is cleared.
Fink discloses:
The system of claim 17, wherein the data related to hospital bed events is stored until the error code is cleared(Para 0013, Fink discloses clearing of a fault code).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified the medical apparatus with enabled features of Brosnan to add data related to hospital bed events is stored until the error code is cleared, as taught by Fink. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to ensure that an issue is resolved with the medical device before the error message is cleared, but in this case, for an a system that checks repairs for electronic vehicle systems(Para 0004, Fink discloses: “Known diagnostic systems and diagnostic testers are restricted to reading out existing fault codes from the control devices in the motor vehicle, processing and interpreting them with a diagnostic program and displaying the result of this interpretation on a screen of the diagnostic tester.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reiner(US20170068792A1) discloses a system for medical device security, data tracking, and outcome analysis.
Halpern(US20160189321A1) discloses an integrated unique device identifier patient safety notification system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
