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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the amendment dated 01/27/2026, the following occurred: Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6-8 have been amended. Claims 3, 5 and 9-21 have been canceled. Claim 22 is new.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 22 are currently pending.
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, 2, 4, 6-8 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a system for speech recognition.
Regarding claims 1, the limitation of illuminate to show that speech is being captured; receive the speech from a patient; convert the speech to text to determine a patient request; condense the text to a summary that is used for generating the patient request, wherein the summary is shorter in length than the text; process the speech to determine an emotion classifier to analyze the features of the speech received; identify a caregiver based on the patient request; generate a message for display, the message containing the summary of the patient request and an emotion icon based on the emotion classifier, the emotion icon conveying an emotion associated with the patient request; send the message to the caregiver wherein the summary and the emotion icon are paired for display together; aggregate emotion classifiers of the patient over a period of time associated with admission of the patient; generate a patient emotional state summary for the patient over the period of time from the aggregate of the emotion classifiers; receive vital signs data captured from the patient; display the patient emotional state summary displayed next to patient data that includes the vital signs data, the patient emotional state summary including a plurality of emotional states detected over a period of time, wherein each emotional state in the patient emotional state summary indicates a relative amount that the patient experienced the emotional state over the period of time; and trigger an alert based upon the vital signs data exceeding an alarm limit or a negative type of the emotion classifier, wherein the alert is sent to the caregiver as crafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a method organizing human but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting (in claim 1) bed, a bed controller, at least one processing device and a memory device, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., rules or instructions). For example, but for the bed, bed controller, at least one processing device, memory device, the claims encompass a system for speech recognition and sending an alert in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity – Managing Personal Behavior Relationships, Interactions Between People (e.g. social activities, teaching, following rules or instructions)” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a bed, bed controller, at least one processing device and a memory device. These additional elements are not exclusively defined by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server or computer components for enabling access to medical information or for performing generic computer functions. See Specification at para. [0030], [0031], [0033] and [0051]-[0053]) such that they amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. As set forth in MPEP 2106.04(d) “merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 further recite the additional element of a device associated with the caregiver, a bed with a microphone and speaker unit that include a call button, at least one indicator, a display device, a wireless access module and a user interface. These additional element are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to output/receive/transmit data) and amount to extra solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicates that extra solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application.
The claim also recites the additional element of utilizing artificial intelligence to analyze the features of the speech. This represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea using a generic computer or components thereof does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Alternatively or in addition, the implementation of the artificial intelligence to analyze the features of the speech merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the bed, bed controller, at least one processing device and memory device to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Moreover, using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device associated with the caregiver, a bed with a microphone and a speaker unit that include a call button, at least one indicator, the display device, the wireless access module and the user interface were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Alternatively or in addition, a bed that includes a microphone and speaker unit on it, that include a call button and at least one indicator is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field (Traughber at [0005], [0006], [0025] and [0207] and Moster (US 2004/0064885) at [0012], [0020], [0022], [0023] and [0029] teach a bed that includes a microphone and speaker unit on it, that include a call button and at least one indicator). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of utilizing artificial intelligence to analyze the features of the speech was found to represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or confine the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(I) indicates that mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer and/or confining the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more.
The examiner notes that: A well-known, general-purpose computer has been determined by the courts to be a well-understood, routine and conventional element (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank; see also MPEP 2106.05(d)); Receiving and/or transmitting data over a network (“a communications network”) has also been recognized by the courts as a well - understood, routine and conventional function (see, e.g., buySAFE v. Google; MPEP 2016(d)(II)); and Performing repetitive calculations is/are also well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see, e.g., Parker v. Flook; MPEP 2016.05(d)).
Claims 2, 4, 6-8 and 22 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Dependent claim 2 further define an urgency level. Dependent claim 4 further define mapping the text and matching the predefined care category. Dependent claim 6 further define capturing audio and generating a patient emotional state summary. Dependent claim 7 further define determining an emotional score and generating an alert. Dependent claim 8 further define receiving a voice command, recording verbal responses and sending a notification. Dependent claim 22 further defines storing a codex of emotional states and associated content classifiers. Claims 2, 4, 6-8 and 22 further define the abstract idea and are rejected for the same reason presented above with respect to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 22, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments, but does not find them persuasive. Applicant argues:
Amended claim 1 addresses a deficiency in traditional nurse call systems integrated with hospital beds. As disclosed in paragraph 23 of the specification, conventional nurse call buttons on hospital beds fail to provide any context or additional information regarding why a patient pressed the button. A nurse call generated by a hospital bed provides no information about the nature or urgency of the patient's request without physically entering the patient's room. This deficiency results in reduced healthcare delivery efficiency by preventing proper prioritization of patient needs in preparing an appropriate response to the nurse call. Amended claim 1 provides a solution to this technical problem by transforming the bed itself into an intelligent communication platform.. this allows the nurse call functionality that is integrated in the bed to summarize the reason for the call and convey the patient's emotional state, enabling a caregiver to understand the reason for the nurse call without having to first enter the room and without requiring additional effort from the patient beyond pressing the call button and speaking… Amended claim 1 specifies particular means by which context is provided: capturing speech using a siderail-mounted microphone and speaker unit, converting speech to text to determine a patient request, utilizing artificial intelligence to analyze speech features for emotional content, and generating a message that pairs the summarized request with an emotion classifier. This particularity distinguishes amended claim 1 from an abstract idea of contextual communication… As explained in the Step 2A, Prong Two analysis, the ordered combination of elements in amended claim 1 solves two specific technical problems in patient bed technology. First, the combination of capturing speech via the siderail-mounted microphone and speaker unit when the call button is depressed, processing that speech using both speech-to-text conversion and AI- based emotion classification, and generating a message pairing the summarized request with an emotion icon provides context to nurse call communications that conventional beds cannot provide. See paragraphs [0001], [0023], [0059] of the specification. Second, the combination of aggregating emotion classifiers over time, generating a patient emotional state summary, and displaying that summary next to vital signs data enables objective patient satisfaction monitoring that conventional bed equipment cannot perform…
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite a technological improvement. The Specification does not support any technical or computer related improvements. The Specification at para. [0084] states improvements to the care provided by the caregiver C to the patient B, and thereby improve the patient P’s satisfaction, [0086] states improve Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) scores in the healthcare facility, and [0091] states improve the emotional state of the patient. None of these mentioned improvements are technical/computer related improvements. The additional element of a bed and a bed controller are recited at high level generality, see Spec at para. [0030]-[0032] that discloses the bed controller to be a generic computer component. The claim does not improve upon generic computer components. The additional element of a bed does not provide practical application nor significantly more as explained in the 101 rejection above. Moreover, claim 1 recites an abstract idea (to paraphrase) - captures speech, converts speech to text, condenses text to summary, uses artificial intelligence as a tool to determine emotional classifier, generates a message, identifies a caregiver, sends a message, displays a summary and emotion icon, aggregates an emotion classifier, generates another summary, receives vital sign data and sends an alert, which is absolutely the organization of human activity. A human can follow rules/instructions to monitor a patient, analyze speech, determine emotion, provide summaries and alerts. The claim at best helps a user understand emotion of a patient by monitoring and alerting patients which provides non-technical improvement to such as administrative/healthcare.
Improvement to Patient Satisfaction Monitoring by Objective Measurement.
Regarding 2, the Examiner respectfully submits that this does not provide any technical improvements.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly recognized that a claim is patent eligible at Step 2B based on "a specific, discrete implementation" of an abstract idea, even when individual elements are conventional. BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&TMobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit found an inventive concept in "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user" despite the individual filtering, customization, and network location elements being known. Id. at 1350-51. Similarly, here, the specific implementation of speech capture through a siderail-mounted microphone and speaker unit, AI- based emotion classification, aggregation of emotional data, integrated display alongside vital signs, and intelligent alerting based on multi-modal data analysis represents an inventive arrangement of elements that transforms bed functionality in a non-conventional manner.
Regarding 3, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicants invention is unlike that of BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC. Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Because this approach considers all claim elements, the Supreme Court has noted that "it is consistent with the general rule that patent claims ‘must be considered as a whole.’ Whether considered separately or as a whole, Applicant’s claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Step 2B analysis provided in the most recent Office Action primarily addresses individual claim elements in isolation rather than evaluating the ordered combination as a whole. For example, the Office Acton cites Traughber and Moster for teaching beds with microphone and speaker units including call buttons and indicators. See Office Action at 7. However, the Office Action does not establish-and cannot establish from these references-that the specific ordered combination recited in amended claim 1 is well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Regarding 4, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of a bed with a microphone and speaker unit that include a call button, at least one indicator is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. a general means to output/receive/transmit data) and amount to extra solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicates that extra solution data gathering activity cannot provide a practical application. Also as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a device associated with the caregiver, a bed with a microphone and a speaker unit that include a call button, at least one indicator were considered extra-solution activity. This has been re-evaluated under “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. MPEP 2016.05(d)(II) indicates that receiving and/or transmitting data over a network has been held by the courts to be well-understood, routine and conventional activity (citing Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs., and buySAFE). Alternatively or in addition, a bed that includes a microphone and speaker unit on it, that include a call button and at least one indicator is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field (Traughber at [0005], [0006], [0025] and [0207] and Moster (US 2004/0064885) at [0012], [0020], [0022], [0023] and [0029] teach a bed that includes a microphone and speaker unit on it, that include a call button and at least one indicator). Well-understood, routine and conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the previous PTO 892 and include:
Biswas (US 2013/0241719) discloses virtual communication platform for healthcare. Moster (US 20040064885) discloses method and apparatus for covering speaker on a bed. Traughber (US 2008/0018436) discloses method and system for advanced patient communication. Chen (US 2021/0144251) discloses systems and methods for smart dialogue communication. Miller (US 2019/0080698) discloses administration of privileges by speech for voice assistant system. Tsuchida (JP 2008084016 A) discloses communication equipment and method for analyzing character message. Klein (US 2005/0164151) discloses educational talking calendar. Johnstone (US 2017/0046496) discloses methods for tracking and responding to mental health changes in a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIZA TONY KANAAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4664. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu 9:00am-6:00pm ET.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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 the 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/docs 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.
/L.T.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/ROBERT W MORGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3683