DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11 May 2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 11 May 2026. No claims have been cancelled, claims 1, 8-9, and 11-12 have been amended, and no new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1-14 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the rejection(s) but notes new grounds of rejection based on the amendments, as below.
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 and/or 103; therefore, the Examiner indicates allowability over the prior art.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that recitations to Applicant's specification, as below, are in reference to the Pre-Grant Publication of Applicant’s specification.
The Examiner notes that claim 3 indicates that the prediction function for an expected length of stay of the inpatient (i.e., a patient already occupying a bed per claim 1) may be based on “independent variables compris[ing] one or more of … or measurement value describing a patient's condition of the inpatient”. This is understood and interpreted as being a measurement value describing the inpatient condition. Although this certainly appears to be “independent”, the Examiner notes that this indicates that a patient occupying a bed is expected to somehow have an altered or different length of stay merely based on a waiting patient’s condition measurement value. This appears to indicate, for example, that a patient will be removed from the hospital because a waiting patient needs the bed. Although this could indeed be correct, the Examiner wanted to check that there is not some language or translation issue that is changing or influencing the claim phrasing.
The Examiner notes that the indications at claim 3 of “diagnosis code, surgery code, treatment code, or measurement value describing a patient's condition of the waiting patient” are not described in the specification, and therefore are being interpreted as any indication of a diagnosis, surgery, care level, treatment, etc.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a hospital bed management processing unit” and “a hospital bed assignment unit” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The Examiner attempted to avert § 112(f) analysis by interpreting, in keeping with the light of the specification at Applicant ¶ 0036 that “processing unit” as at claim 12 (and the respective dependent claims) is a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU), graphics processing unit (GPU), or the like. Applicant, nevertheless, asserts that “Applicant agrees that it can be these things, but disagrees with the Examiner's interpretation that the disclosure is limited, as this is open to interpretation, such that the applicant does not acquiesce to this interpretation” (11 May 2026 Remarks at p. 11). Therefore, Applicant is positively asserting that they desire an interpretation of “processing unit” that encompasses other meanings beyond a hardware processor. As such, 35 USC § 112(f) is invoked by Applicant, and MPEP § 2181 is referenced for analysis related to written support under 35 USC § 112(a) and definiteness under 35 USC § 112(b).
Regarding written support, MPEP § 2181(II)(B) indicates
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239….
To claim a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and then to disclose only a general purpose computer as the structure designed to perform that function amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America Co., 989 F.3d 1002, 1007-8, 2021 USPQ2d 284 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
The Examiner does not find an algorithm that would/could transform a general-purpose computer into a special purpose computer. Therefore, the system claimed at claim 12 lacks written description support.
Claims 13-14 depend from claim 12, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 13-14 are also lacking written support.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Independent claims 1, 11, and 12 each now recite “placing the FSM … in an earliest empty cell … in the hospital bed assignment plan table” – as in, apparently, assigning the bed represented by the cell to the patient. The term “FSM” appears to be used by the claim to mean the patient, or patient name, or similar, while the accepted meaning (see the NPL below) is apparently that “A Finite State Machine is any device storing the state of something at a given time” (see Bors, below, at 3). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The Examiner is uncertain if this is a translation issue or concern, or if this is a misuse of the term “FSM”, or if this is a cultural/societal difference (noting Applicant Fig. 2 indicates the prospective patient inquiring about when they can be hospitalized). But Applicant Figs. 3-4 are indicated as illustrating the “hospital bed assignment plan table” (see Applicant ¶¶ 0030-0031 as submitted, 0024-0025 as published) – it appears impossible to place an FSM in that table, the table indicates patient identifiers as occupying a cell.
The Examiner is interpreting the claims as the assignment plan table using, or operating as, an FSM so as to associate a patient to a bed.
Claims 2-10 and 13-14 depend from claims 1 and 12, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 2-10 and 13-14 are also indefinite.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 12 each now recite “wherein the FSM is formed by regarding the hospitalization indication of the hospital bed assignment query as an object that operates on its own”. Applicant ¶ 0100 (as submitted, 0092 as published) appears to be the only support, indicating “the hospital bed assignment unit 150 may form a finite state machine (FSM) corresponding to the hospitalization indication of the hospital bed assignment query. The hospital bed assignment unit 150 regards the hospitalization indication of the hospital bed assignment query as an object such as a robot that operates on its own. The object, which is the hospitalization indication, may also be referred to as FSM. The hospital bed assignment unit 150 places the FSM on the hospital bed assignment plan table and assigns a hospital bed to a waiting patient of the FSM”. The only other mentions of an “object” indicate the object as being software (Applicant ¶ 0043, as submitted, 0036 as published) or a/the client (Applicant ¶ 0048, as submitted, 0041 as published). But there is no indication of what is possibly meant by it “operates on its own”. At the first element, the indicated query is merely received. Therefore, this could be interpreted as the query somehow being a software object (like a software robot? – i.e., a robo-query?), or that the query is somehow a hardware object (e.g., an actual robot), or that the FSM is the “object” and “operat[ing] on its own” (per ¶ 0100/¶ 0092); however, how it can be “regarded” as anything more than, or other than, simply a received “hospital bed assignment query” is not explained or apparent. Further, there is literally no explanation whatsoever regarding what would be meant by it “operat[ing] on its own”.
For purposes of examination, this is being interpreted as an FSM – i.e., a list of the state of one or more beds that changes according to whether it is occupied, available, reserved, etc.
Claims 2-10 and 13-14 depend from claims 1 and 12, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 2-10 and 13-14 are also indefinite.
Regarding claim 12, the Examiner attempted to avert § 112(f) analysis by interpreting, in keeping with the light of the specification at Applicant ¶ 0036 that “processing unit” as at claim 12 (and the respective dependent claims) is a hardware processor such as a central processing unit (CPU), graphics processing unit (GPU), or the like. Applicant, nevertheless, asserts that “Applicant agrees that it can be these things, but disagrees with the Examiner's interpretation that the disclosure is limited, as this is open to interpretation, such that the applicant does not acquiesce to this interpretation” (11 May 2026 Remarks at p. 11). Therefore, Applicant is positively asserting that they desire an interpretation of “processing unit” that encompasses other meanings beyond a hardware processor. As such, 35 USC § 112(f) is invoked by Applicant, and MPEP § 2181 is referenced for analysis related to written support under 35 USC § 112(a) and definiteness under 35 USC § 112(b).
Regarding written support, MPEP § 2181(II)(A) indicates
The proper test for meeting the definiteness requirement is that the corresponding structure (or material or acts) of a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the specification itself in a way that one skilled in the art will understand what structure (or material or acts) will perform the recited function. See Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1999). ….
If there is no disclosure of structure, material or acts for performing the recited function, the claim fails to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b).).
Since there is no apparent algorithm disclosed, and Applicant avows that the hardware processor is not necessarily performing the functions of the claim, the claim is indefinite based on lacking written support since one of ordinary skill would apparently not know or be informed regarding what structure or algorithm(s) would be performing the functions. Therefore, the system claimed at claim 12 is indefinite.
Claims 13-14 depend from claim 12, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 13-14 are also indefinite.
Further regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites “using big data”, where the Examiner Applicant asserted that there is no apparent limiting structure indicated by “big data” and the preamble of claim 12 is therefore interpreted as intended and may be granted little if any patentable weigh, Applicant traverses this by asserting that “Applicant submits that Paragraph [0039] of the Substitute Specification as filed provides a definition of "big data" as the term is used in the Specification” (see the 11 May 2026 Remarks at 11-12). Therefore, since Applicant asserts “using big data” should have limiting effect, rejection is required under 35 USC § 112(b). Applicant ¶ 0039 indicates that “In this specification, big data refers to a large amount of structured, unstructured or semi-structured data, and may include building-related information, actual transaction price information, and the like”, with some indications of what that data may be and where or how that data is stored (in fixed fields, not in fixed fields, “text documents, images, videos, and voice data…. but includes metadata or schema, such as XML, HTML, and text”). However, this is not a definition – it very literally indicates “big data” is a relative term, i.e., “a large amount” of various data that may or may not be present. There is NO definition associated with how much data constitutes “a large amount” and what does not. According to the “definition” propounded by Applicant, the term “big data” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “big data” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, as explained above.
Therefore, for this reason also, claim 12 is indefinite.
Claims 13-14 depend from claim 12, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 13-14 are also indefinite based on the term “big data” being “defined” as a relative term.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a method (claims 1-11), non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (claim 11), and system (claims 12-14), which would be classified, or could be amended to be classified, under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a smart hospital bed operating method performed by a computing device comprising a processor, the method comprising: receiving a hospital bed assignment query including a hospitalization indication condition for a waiting patient; searching for a hospital bed that matches the hospitalization indication condition; and determining that a searched list of hospital beds does not include an empty hospital bed; in response to the determining, pre-assigning a hospital bed occupied by an inpatient to the waiting patient based on a hospital bed assignment plan table including the expected discharge date of the inpatient wherein the pre-assigning comprises: calculating a daily discharge probability of the inpatient based on an expected length of stay of the inpatient by applying inpatient information of the inpatient to a pre-modeled prediction function, wherein the prediction function is generated based on training data of previously hospitalized and discharged patients, the prediction function being generated by selecting one or more variables from a plurality of variables associated with discharge of patients and formalizing a correlation between the selected one or more variables and an actual length of stay in the past, wherein the daily discharge probability is a probability that the inpatient will actually be discharged on a corresponding day, wherein the closer a corresponding day is to an end date of the expected length of stay, the higher the daily discharge probability is calculated, creating a finite state machine (FSM) corresponding to a hospitalization indication of the waiting patient, wherein the FSM is formed by regarding the hospitalization indication of the hospital bed assignment query as an object that operates on its own, wherein the FSM has characteristics that states of the FSM are limited, only one state at a time is possible, an input or event is transferred to the FSM, and each state can transition to a next state depending on the input, wherein the FSM has condition attributes that describe the hospitalization indication conditions and state attributes that describe the states of the FSM, wherein the state of the FSM includes a first state, a first-1 state, a first-2 state, and a second state, wherein the first state indicates searching for hospital beds, the first-1 state indicates searching for cells in which the FSM will be placed, the first-2 state indicates tentative assignment, and the second state indicates that assignment is completed, setting a state of the FSM based on a previous history of the waiting patient, wherein if there is no previous history, the state of the FSM is set to an initial state being the first-1 state, placing the FSM on the hospital bed assignment plan table according to a code of conduct predefined for each state of the FSM, wherein the placing comprises placing the FSM whose state is set to the first-1 state in an earliest empty cell among the empty cells in the hospital bed assignment plan table and updating the state of the FSM to the first-2 state, where the earliest empty cell is an empty cell associated with the inpatient hospital bed with the earliest expected admission date in the hospital bed assignment plan table, wherein the inpatient hospital bed associated with cells where the FSM with the first-2 state is placed is a tentatively-assigned hospital bed, and wherein a plurality of FSMs may be preferentially assigned or concede their already assigned hospital beds based on their state attributes and the condition attributes of waiting patients.
Independent claim 12 is analyzed similarly to claim 1 since directed to a hospital bed operating system … comprising: a hospital bed management processing unit …; a hospital bed assignment processing unit …; and a hospital bed schedule prediction processing unit configured to perform the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is analyzed similarly to claim 1 since directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the same or similar activities as at claim 1 above.
The dependent claims (claims 2-10 and 13-14) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate calculating length of stay (using a pre-modeled prediction function), creating a table including the length of stay, and assigning the bed based on the table (claim 2), using dependent and independent variables (gender, diagnosis, surgery, or treatment code, a measurement value) (claim 3), determining independent variable coefficients by an optimization algorithm (claim 4), the assignment plan table having empty and fill cells, and using an FSM, setting a state based on the patient history, and placing the FSM according to a predefined code of conduct (claim 5), the state being an initial search state, the code of conduct being to place the FSM in the earliest empty cell, and updating to an assigned state (claim 6), sending a reservation indicating a completed assignment (claim 7), if urgency is indicated, comparing expected wait times to a maximum tolerable wait time (claim 8), reassigning tentatively-assigned beds based on the urgency comparison (claims 9-10), a database storing bed resource, inpatient, and waiting patient information (claim 13), and/or an interface to provide the assignment plan table (claim 14).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of assigning hospital beds to patients, perhaps including by calculating an expected bed availability; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping(s) of subject matter as based on the queries, searching, and pre-assigning of beds based on a table:
The Examiner notes that Mathematical concepts (e.g., relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations) based at least on using a pre-modeled function to calculate a discharge probability, using a finite state machine, using an optimization algorithm to determine independent variable coefficients, etc. (at some dependent claims); and
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are the method being performed by a computing device comprising a processor (at claim 1), the system comprising processing units (at claim 12) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform method steps (at claim 11). The Examiner notes that the database and plan table as indicated at the claims may be at least the analog of hard-copy versions of the database and table. The FSM recited is really just listing the status of the search for a bed (i.e., searching, tentative assignment, completed assignment), but is recited as a machine, and is therefore analyzed as such. These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility. Applicant ¶¶ 0174-0176 indicate the computer and media as merely being general-purpose devices “such as a desktop computer, laptop computer, notebook, smart phone, or the like, or any device that may be integrated”.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 are indicated as allowable over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest art of record is
Mancine et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0149701, hereinafter Mancine) indicating hospital bed query, searching for a match, determining that there are no empty beds, pre-assigning a hospital bed occupied by an inpatient, calculating a discharge probability wherein a higher probability is indicated when closer to a corresponding expected end date.
Shanbhag (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0180029) teaches predicting a day for probability of discharge based on past patients.
AthuluruTlrumala et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0221072, hereinafter AthuluruTlrumala) teaches “using a Finite State Machine (FSM) or the like to manage each customer and/or employee, i.e., human, operating in a customer centric business.” (AthuluruTlrumala at 0047) where “For example, for resource status, in restaurant scenarios that would be tables, for hospital it would beds, oxygen cylinders, wheel chairs, etc.” (AthuluruTlrumala at 0074) and “The system 10 allows defined experiences—types and associated workflow per customer type, e.g., inpatient experience for regulars, etc.; monitor and personalization of end-to-end workflows in real-time—predictive analytics and suggestion; and notification and control—automatic suggestion, customer choices, etc. The system 10 can be utilized in bed management in a hospital, food and beverage service in a hospital, nurse clearance bottlenecks, accelerating nurse clearance by facilitating doctor's approvals, discharge summary bottlenecks, accelerating discharge summary approvals, and the like” (AthuluruTlrumala at 0112).
The Examiner notes that by definition, a/an FSM has limited states, only one state is possible, an event can or would cause transition to a next state which becomes the set state for the object (i.e., a patient or a bed), there is a beginning or initial state and various subsequent states. Further, the actual names (e.g., “first state”, “first-1 state”, “first-2 state”, etc.) are merely labels that constitute printed matter – the labels are not patentable themselves.
Ellis et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0247948, hereinafter Ellis) teaches tracking bed assignments via dropping cards indicating a state into a bed cell to establish a state for the patient as associated to a bed.
However, there does not appear to be art that actually indicates placing a FSM in the earliest empty cell of the bed assignment plan table. Although this may be a viable option, it does not appear reasonable to absolutely select the earliest empty cell (since this would apparently place, e.g., a maternity patient in a cardiac or cancer care ward, or other similar circumstances). And although it may be possible to arrive at the earliest empty bed available, it does not appear reasonable in light of the various references indicated to combine them in such a manner as to arrive at the entirety of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the 101 rejection, reviewing or summarizing the rejections (Remarks at 12-14), then asserting that “applicant would like to traverse the Examiner's assertion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea because the status of the bed assignment is temporary/tentative due to the fact that the bed assignment can be conceded to a preferential assignment” (Id. at 14). However, the basis for finding the claims directed to an abstract idea is detailed at the analysis related to Step 2A, Prong 1, not at the response to Applicant’s arguments – that response is specific to Applicant’s allegation, not the claim elements analyzed individually and as a whole, ordered combination.
Applicant then asserts that “the claimed FSM is not a mere status listing but rather a specific technical implementation with defined computational structure that is ‘formed by regarding the hospitalization indication of the hospital bed assignment query as an object that operates on its own’" (Id. at 15). However, a finite state machine (“FSM”) is just that – a list of the state of each object (in the instant case, beds and/or a patient) that Applicant indicates is included in a table – “the hospital bed assignment plan table may include creating a finite state machine (FSM) of the waiting patient” (at Applicant ¶ 0015). Using a more technology-oriented, or technological sounding, term for it does not change the meaning or function of it – it is still a list or table indicating the state of the object. Regarding “the hospital bed assignment query as an object that operates on its own” – the Examiner has no actual idea what this may mean, or how to interpret it, or what any limitation associated with this would mean (hence the 112 rejection above). There simply is no description regarding how this would be done.
Applicant then argues “the automatic placement of the FSM in the earliest empty cell with automatic state transition from the first-1 state to a first-2 state which demonstrates a concrete, automated process rather than an abstract concept” (Remarks at 15). However, this apparently just means to record the state of the patient associated with a bed – as indicated by Applicant Figs. 3-4. Applicant continues by alleging “The system indicates which beds are empty and allows for a patient to be assigned to each empty bed based on the autonomous calculation provided by the FSM” (Remarks at 15), but there is no “autonomous calculation” by the FSM – an FSM merely records the state of an object and changes/transitions that state to a new/next state when an event is registered that indicates the state should or must change.
Applicant continues by arguing that “What has, until now, been a manual process, can be calculated more efficiently with this system” (Id.); however, this apparently reinforces that the claims are an abstract idea – the claims are directed to performing the activities a person would or could otherwise perform (assigning a patient a bed), and doing so via use of a general-purpose computer.
Applicant then argues the prior art rejections (Remarks at 16-20); however, the Examiner indicates allowability over the prior art as above (at least in part based on the indefiniteness and how to actually interpret the claim limitations). Therefore, Applicant’s argument(s) is/are considered moot and not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bors, What is a Finite State Machine?, dated 10 March 2018, downloaded 2 December 2025 from https://medium.com/@mlbors/what-is-a-finite-state-machine-6d8dec727e2c, defining and describing what a Finite State Machine is.
Frain, Finite State Machines, dated 28 February 2020, downloaded 2 December 2025 from https://benfrain.com/finite-state-machines/, defining, describing, and offering resources regarding Finite State Machines.
Chakrabarti et al., Using spreadsheets for finite state modelling. In Proceedings of the 2nd India software engineering conference (ISEC '09), 2009. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/1506216.1506223, downloaded 3 September 2026 from https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1506216.1506223, indicating “State based modelling is a widely used practice in the software industry. There are two methods of building state based models: either using graphical modelling tools, or using formal languages like SMV or SAL…. a large number of software engineers find it convenient to write their specifications semi-formally using tools such as spreadsheets. We formalise the spreadsheet finite modelling language and demonstrate that it is expressive enough to capture most important notions of finite state modelling. We show that this language is sufficiently usable in terms of readability and maintainability. We also present SAL-gen, a tool that takes as an input a finite state model written in our language, and generates corresponding SAL code. This can form the basis for analysis tools such as property checkers and test generators using the existing SAL tool set.” (at Abstract).
Kanade, Vijay, What Is a Finite State Machine (FSM)? Meaning, Working, and Examples, dated 12 September 2023, downloaded 4 September 2026 from https://www.spiceworks.com/soft-tech/what-is-fsm/, indicating “A finite state machine (FSM) is a mathematical model used to represent and control the behavior of systems that can exist in a finite number of states at any given time. It is a concept widely used in computer science, engineering, and other fields to design, analyze, and implement systems with discrete and sequential behavior…. At its core, an FSM consists of a set of states, a set of input events or stimuli, a set of output actions or responses, and a set of transitions between states based on input events. It can be visualized as a directed graph where nodes represent the states and the edges connecting the nodes represent transitions” (Kanade at 3).
Finite State Machine Explained, dated 6 January 2020, downloaded 4 September 2026 from https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/finite-state-machines/, indicating “A FSM is defined by its states, its initial state and the transitions” (at 1), and using a coffee machine as an illustration, requiring a start event to transition to an Open state, which upon a deposit event (the deposit being greater than a cost) transitions to a ReadyToBuy state, whereupon when there is no more coffee (as an event) it shuts down (transitions) to a PoweredOff state, or dispenses as an event to return to the Open state, or if there is a cancel event it also returns to the Open state).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5 PM.
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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights