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
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) 1-8 and 11-20 is/are rejected under as being unpatentable “ProgressaTM Bed User Manual”, hereinafter referred to as “Progressa”, in view of Drake (US 2016/0235610).
PNG
media_image1.png
842
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Progressa discloses a system for sensing and responding to an emergency event, the system comprising:
an activator to signal the emergency event (see “CPR control” on page 13 of manual below);
PNG
media_image2.png
344
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and
a patient support apparatus including:
a support structure having a base arranged for movement along a floor surface,
a support frame, and a patient support deck for supporting the patient, the patient support deck including a deck section capable of articulation relative to the support frame (page iv of Progressa manual listed above);
a plurality of actuators coupled to the support structure, including a lift actuator
to lift and lower the support frame and the patient support deck relative to the base between a high height position and a low height position (see excerpt from page 17 of manual below),
PNG
media_image3.png
192
612
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and a deck actuator to articulate the deck section relative to the support frame (see excerpt from pages 18 and 19 of Progressa manual below);
PNG
media_image4.png
308
610
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
520
608
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a user interface to cause operation of the plurality of actuators (see user interface icons listed in pages 13 and 17-19 of Progressa manual); and
a controller coupled to the activator, the user interface, and the plurality of actuators (see icon from page 7 below),
PNG
media_image6.png
86
616
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the controller comprising a motion lock module having a plurality of configurable electronic motion locks including a first motion lock associated with the lift actuator (lockout control of “bed up/down” , see excerpt from page 17 below) and a second motion lock associated with the deck actuator (lockout control of “bed articulating functions”, see excerpt from page 17 below);
PNG
media_image7.png
704
642
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the first motion lock has a lift locked state in which the user interface is inoperable to actuate the lift actuator to lift and lower the support frame relative to the base, and a lift unlocked state in which the user interface is operable to actuate the lift actuator to lift and lower the support frame relative to the base (see “to activate” and “to deactivate” from page 17 excerpt above); and the second motion lock has a deck locked state in which the user interface is inoperable to actuate the deck actuator to articulate the deck section relative to the support frame, and a deck unlocked state in which the user interface is operable to actuate the deck actuator (see “to activate” and “to deactivate” from page 17 excerpt above) to articulate the deck section relative to the support frame, and the controller is configured to automatically reset the first motion lock and the second motion lock to their unlocked states in response to detecting the emergency event (see excerpt in box from page 17 below)..
PNG
media_image8.png
184
618
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Progressa fails to disclose the activator being configured to measure one or more physiological parameters of a patient. Drake teaches an activator (328, see para. [0064 configured to measure one or more physiological parameters of a patient (see para. [0037] and Fig. 2), and a controller coupled to the activator (see para. [0058], i.e. “physiological sensors 328 provide physiological data that the controller 310 uses to determine the patient state” and [0072]). 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 apparatus of Progressa with the heart rate monitor arrangement of Drake. The motivation would have been to notify a caregiver that immediate care is required, thus potentially reducing time-to-treatment.
Regarding Claim 2, Progressa as modified teaches wherein the controller of the patient support apparatus is configured to determine the emergency event in response to the one or more physiological parameters of the patient on the patient support deck falling below one or more predetermined thresholds (Drake: see para. [0058], i.e. “physiological sensors 328 provide physiological data that the controller 310 uses to determine the patient state” and [0072]).
Regarding Claim 3, Progressa as modified teaches wherein the activator includes a heart rate monitor to measure a heart rate of the patient on the patient support deck (Drake: 328).
Regarding Claim 4, Progressa as modified teaches wherein the controller of the patient support apparatus is configured to detect the emergency event in response to the heart rate of the patient falling below a predetermined threshold (Drake: see para. [0058], i.e. “physiological sensors 328 provide physiological data that the controller 310 uses to determine the patient state” and [0072]).
Regarding Claim 5, Progressa as modified teaches wherein the activator is coupled to the support structure of the patient support apparatus (Drake: see para. [0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Progressa discloses wherein the deck section is a back section (see “CPR control” on page 13).
Regarding Claim 7, Progressa discloses the controller is configured to limit actuation of the lift actuator when in the lift locked state (lockout control of “bed up/down, , see excerpt from page 17 above) and to limit actuation of the deck actuator when in the deck locked state (lockout control of “bed articulating functions”, see excerpt from page 17 above).
Regarding Claim 8, Progressa discloses including a footboard coupled to the support structure (see “D” in “Quick ViewTM List of Features” on page iv and page 40).
Regarding Claim 11, Progressa discloses wherein the controller of the patient support apparatus is configured to automatically operate the deck actuator to articulate the deck section to a lowered position in response to detecting the emergency event (see “Use the CPR Control” on page 13, i.e. “After the head section is flat, a tone sounds and the foot section rises. The foot section moves to a flat position within a maximum of 30 seconds if fully articulated.”).
Regarding Claim 12, Progressa discloses wherein the controller is configured to automatically operate the lift actuator to lower the patient support deck in response to detecting the emergency event (see “Use the CPR Control” on page 13, i.e. “the HandsFree® CPR Control lowers the head and knee sections and raises the foot section” placing the patient support apparatus in Trendelenburg position).
Regarding Claims 13-15, Progressa discloses wherein the controller of the patient support apparatus includes a monitoring module (see pages 28-29) configured to set a desired state of a plurality of conditions for the patient support apparatus (see above)
PNG
media_image9.png
138
302
media_image9.png
Greyscale
and control a visual indicator to indicate that the patient support apparatus is in an undesired configuration in response to detecting one or more of the plurality of conditions being in an undesired state
PNG
media_image10.png
50
306
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(see text excerpt above), wherein the controller of the patient support apparatus is configured to disable the monitoring module in response to detecting the emergency event (see below).
PNG
media_image11.png
240
620
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 16-18, see Claims 13-15 rejections above.
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Progressa discloses a therapy device (see pages 55-63) coupled to the controller of the patient support apparatus to provide therapy to a patient supported on the patient support deck, wherein the controller of the patient support apparatus is configured to disable operation of the therapy device in response to detecting the emergency event (see page 60 excerpt below).
PNG
media_image12.png
32
528
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Progressa in view of Drake (US 2016/0235610) as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Osborne (US 6,691,346).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Progressa fails to disclose a second user interface coupled to the footboard, wherein the second user interface includes a user input device to access the motion lock module and configure the first motion lock and the second motion lock. Progressa discloses a single user interface on the siderail of the patient support apparatus. Osborne teaches a foot board user interface (692, see Fig. 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to duplicate Progressa’s first user interface and place it on the footboard as taught by Osborne. The motivation would have been to provide access to the controls at various locations on the bed, thus increasing convenience for a caregiver. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) and MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(B).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,527,705. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent , specifically claims 1 and 13, anticipate at least claim 1 of the instant invention.
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 on 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
