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
The present Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated 07/13/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8 and 22 are currently pending.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/13/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a bed for speech recognition, which is within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
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 drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, illuminate to show that speech is being captured, receive the speech, convert the speech to text, condense the text to a summary, process the speech, identify a caregiver, generate a message for display, send the message, aggregate emotion classifiers of the patient, generate a patient emotional state summary, receive vital signs data, display the patient emotional state summary displayed next to patient data that includes the vital signs data, and trigger an alert, wherein the alert is sent to the caregiver in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps of “illuminate… receive… convert… condense… process... identify… generate… send… aggregate… generate… receive… display… and trigger an alert, wherein the alert is sent to the caregiver” as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., (in claim 1) a bed controller including 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). 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.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a bed controller including 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 including a microphone, speaker unit, a call button and at least one indicator, a display device, a wireless access module and a user interface. These additional element merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use 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. See, e.g., Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., No. 2023-2437 at 10 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2025) (finding that claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment are ineligible). 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.
Step 2B
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 determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide 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. Claim(s) 2 further merely describe(s) determining an urgency level and including it in the message. Claim(s) 4 further merely describe(s) mapping the text and matching the predefined care category. Claim(s) 6 further merely describe(s) capturing audio and generating a patient emotional state summary. Claim(s) 7 further merely describe(s) determining an emotional score and generating an alert. Claim(s) 8 further merely describe(s) receiving a voice command to start a clinical assessment, guiding the patient, recording verbal responses and sending a notification. Claim(s) 22 further merely describe(s) storing a codex of emotional states and associated content classifiers and determining emotion classifier. 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:
The Claims Are Directed to a Technological Improvement to Hospital Bed Technology and Are Integrated Into a Practical Application (Step 2A, Prong Two)… conventional hospital bed incorporated any capability to capture and process patient speech, to derive an emotional classifier from speech features using artificial intelligence, to aggregate emotional state data over time, or to display a longitudinal patient emotional state summary alongside physiological data in a unified interface on the bed itself. Id. 7-9. These were not mere operational shortcomings, but rather they were documented patient safety deficiencies, with study participants reporting delays in emergency response and safety incidents directly attributable to the absence of contextual information in nurse call signals. Id. 6. Against these documented technical limitations, claim 1 does not simply apply conventional steps to a new field. The specific ordered combination of elements in claim 1, which include capturing speech via a siderail-mounted microphone and speaker unit upon call button depression; converting speech to text and condensing it to a summary; processing speech… and triggering multi-modal alerts based on both physiological thresholds and negative emotional classifier patterns, transforms the hospital bed itself into an intelligent, multi-modal communication and monitoring platform. See SMED 11-17. This transformation directly and concretely addresses the documented deficiencies of conventional beds: it adds contextual intelligence to the nurse call signal, introduces objective real-time patient satisfaction monitoring through a bed-integrated interface, and enables multi-modal alert triggering that incorporates patient emotional data as an independent alerting basis. Id. 19.
Regarding 1, The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim does not recite a technological improvement and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. the claim processes data and sends alert, which is an abstract idea. The problem the Applicant addresses “documented patient safety deficiencies, with study participants reporting delays in emergency response and safety incidents directly attributable to the absence of contextual information in nurse call signals” is not a technical problem, rather a healthcare related problem and does not render a technical solution. The claims use generic computer components, such as bed controller including at least one processing device and a memory device to perform the abstract idea stated supra. in the SME rejected in bolded letters. Generic computer components cannot provide a practical application. See Specification at para. [0030], [0031], [0033] and [0051]-[0053] that describe bed controller including at least one processing device and a memory device as generic computer components.
Moreover, Applicants disclosure 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. At best this helps a user understand emotion of a patient by monitoring patients and alerting caregivers which provides non-technical improvement to such as administrative/healthcare.
The Examiner's response to Applicant's prior arguments dismissed the specification's disclosures as reflecting only administrative or healthcare improvements rather than technical ones, pointing to paragraphs [0084], [0086], and [0091] as evidence that the stated benefits are non-technical. This analysis is incomplete. The SMED supplies the missing context: the relevant improvements are to the hardware and software architecture of the bed itself including how the bed functions, what the bed's integrated systems are capable of doing, and what data the bed generates and transmits. Whether caregivers ultimately benefit through better prioritization of patient responses, or patients benefit through improved satisfaction scores, does not negate that the mechanism of improvement is a specific, documented technical transformation of the bed's nurse call and monitoring functionality. See SMED 12, 15, 17, 19-20. A claim that improves the technical functioning of a specific machine-here, a hospital bed and its integrated hardware-is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding 2, the Examiner respectfully submits that there are no improvements to the hardware and software architecture of the bed, microphone, speaker unit, call button, indicator, display device, wireless access module, bed controller, at least one processing device, memory, user interface nor device associated with the caregiver. The claims use generic computer components to perform the abstract idea, i.e., bed controller, at least one processing device and memory, which are either recited at high level generality and do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The additional elements of a device associated with the caregiver, a bed including a microphone, speaker unit, a call button and at least one indicator, a display device, a wireless access module and a user interface merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Moreover, utilizing artificial intelligence to analyze the features of the speech 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. When considered alone or in combination, these additional elements cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
… This analysis treats each hardware element in isolation and ignores how those components function together as an integrated architecture within the claimed bed. The claimed siderail-mounted microphone and speaker unit is not merely a generic input device because it is the specific interface through which the bed captures patient speech upon call button depression. Further, the bed controller is not merely a generic processor because it is the specific component that executes the ordered combination of speech-to-text conversion, AI-based emotion classification, emotion classifier aggregation, and multi-modal alert triggering in a non-conventional arrangement on the bed. Id. 22. The wireless access module is not merely a transmission component; it is the bed-integrated means by which the contextual message generated from the patient's speech is routed to an identified caregiver's device. Id. Considered as an integrated, ordered whole-as required under Alice these elements do not amount to extra-solution activity but to the specific hardware architecture through which the claimed improvement is realized on the bed.
Regarding 3, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The analysis considers all additional elements alone and in combination. And when considered alone or in combination they do not provide practical application nor significantly more. There is nothing in the claim that is non-conventional and the ordered set of elements does not render any technical improvements.
The Office Action, under Step 2B, alleges that the additional elements of the claims are well-understood, routine, and conventional. This analysis fails to address the ordered combination of elements as a whole, which is precisely the analysis required under Alice and the analysis that the SMED directly addresses... This specific ordered combination was, as the SMED attests, not well-understood, routine, or conventional in hospital bed technology at the time of filing.
Regarding 4, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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.
Conclusion
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:
Wang (CN 21690840 U) discloses nursing bed for digital information management of nurse station in hospital.
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.
/LIZA TONY KANAAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights