DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, 17, and 21-26 are pending in this application.
Claims 5, 12, 16, and 18-20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 8, the Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea by the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. (REMARKS, on page 8-11).
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is improper because the newly amended claim 8 is still directed to abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong One: The independent claim 8 recites “accessing, by a processor and via a wired or wireless electronic connection, a microphone associated with a medical device to receive a first natural language sentence spoken by a user of the medical device, wherein the first natural language sentence requests that the medical device perform an equipment operation; extracting, by the processor and from an encoder portion of a large language model, a first embedding corresponding to the first natural language sentence; comparing, by the processor, the first embedding to a plurality of stored embeddings respectively corresponding to natural language descriptions of a plurality of available equipment operations of the medical device, each equipment operation corresponding to a controllable actuator of the medical device; identifying, by the processor, an equipment operation, whose stored embedding is most similar to the first embedding and whose similarity exceeds a similarity confidence threshold; and in response to the similarity exceeding the similarity confidence threshold, instructing, by the processor via an instruction command communicated to the medical device the wired or wireless connection, the medical device to perform the equipment operation by activating the controllable actuator corresponding to the equipment operation”. These activities reflect perceiving information, extracting and matching an operation, checking whether the operating exceed a threshold and instructing.
[Abstract idea indicators]
Receiving a natural language sentence—a task humans routinely perform mentally or with conventional tools.
Determining and mapping a target operation --- making and planning steps that are mental processes.
Determining whether an operation exceed a similarity threshold --- similarity based decision-making, which is a form of organizing human activity / mental process.
Instructing to operate a device --- outputting information; no specific technical mechanism for instructing/operating is recited.
These steps are information processing and decision-making — activities that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and that courts/USPTO treat as abstract ideas.
Conclusion for Step 2A, Prong One:Yes — the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (mental processes + organizing human activity).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a practical application?
The claim must apply the abstract idea in a way that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology.
Here:
The claim applies the abstract idea in the context of communication operations between a user and an equipment.
However, the claim does not recite how the large language model is implemented in a novel way or any specific technical solution to a technical problem.
The context of “medical device”, “equipment”, and “controllable actuator” context is a field-of-use limitation — it confines the idea to a specific environment but doesn’t change the nature of the abstract idea.
Conclusion for Step 2A, Prong Two:No — the claim does not integrate the exception into a practical application that improves computer technology.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
Now we ask: Do the additional claim elements (individually or in combination) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
Generic components: processor, equipment, device — standard computer hardware.
Large Language Model: recited at a high level, with no specific architecture, training process, or unconventional application.
The combination appears to be a generic computer implementation of an abstract workflow.
Conclusion for Step 2B:No inventive concept is apparent — the claim recites known computer components executing generic functions.
With respect to claims 1 and 15, the claim is similar to claim 8 and claims 1 and 15 recite additional element of “memory” and “processor”. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as well. These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 17, and 21-26, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, 17, and 21-26 are rejected.
Regarding Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s amendment and arguments with respect to rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, 17, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 8 recites “accessing, by a processor and via a wired or wireless electronic connection, a microphone associated with a medical device to receive a first natural language sentence spoken by a user of the medical device, wherein the first natural language sentence requests that the medical device perform an equipment operation; extracting, by the processor and from an encoder portion of a large language model, a first embedding corresponding to the first natural language sentence; comparing, by the processor, the first embedding to a plurality of stored embeddings respectively corresponding to natural language descriptions of a plurality of available equipment operations of the medical device, each equipment operation corresponding to a controllable actuator of the medical device; identifying, by the processor, an equipment operation, whose stored embedding is most similar to the first embedding and whose similarity exceeds a similarity confidence threshold; and in response to the similarity exceeding the similarity confidence threshold, instructing, by the processor via an instruction command communicated to the medical device the wired or wireless connection, the medical device to perform the equipment operation by activating the controllable actuator corresponding to the equipment operation”.
The limitation of “accessing…”, “extracting…”, “comparing…”, “identifying…” and “instructing” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a human organizing of activities. More specifically, a human listens to a command from another person and manipulates a device.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 8 recites additional element of “processor”. The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as performing a generic computer function and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, there additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claims 1 and 15, the claim is similar to claim 8 and claims 1 and 15 recite additional element of “processor” and “computer-readable memory”. The processor and memory are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component as well. These claims further do not remedy the judicial exception being integrated into a practical application and further fail to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-14, 17, and 21-26, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, 17, and 21-26 are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, 17, 21-24 and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Receveur et al., (US Pub. 2022/0101847) in view of Oks et al., (US Pat. 12,511,497).
Regarding claim 1, Receveur discloses a system, comprising:
a processor that executes computer-executable components stored in a non-transitory computer-readable memory, wherein the computer-executable components comprise:
an access component that accesses, via a microphone associated with a medical device, a first natural language sentence spoken by a user of the medical device, wherein the first natural language sentence requests that the medical device perform an equipment operation ([0095] “FIGS. 1-3, showing the caregiver providing voice inputs to the microphone on one of the siderails of the patient bed, the patient bed having circuitry with embedded voice recognition (VR) and natural language processing (NLP) software to convert the voice inputs into command messages that are communicated to the bed controller to control functions of the patient bed”); and
instructs the medical device to perform the equipment operation (Fig. 8, [0004][0137][0139] implementing medical device function).
Receveur does not explicitly teach however Oks does explicitly teach:
a model component (Fig. 1, LLM 140 is in speech processing system 134) that:
extracts, from an encoder portion of a large language model, a first embedding corresponding to the first natural language sentence (Col. 24, line 33-Col. 25, line 48, Col. 35, lines 6-60, Fig. 8, LLM Orchestrator 812, Fig. 6, steps 604-608, generating embedding of the input utterance; Fig. 1, Fig. 6, step 602, receiving, using microphones, natural language utterance which requests to perform operation in healthcare facility and accessing via wireless network, Col 47, line 65-Col 48, line 18, Col. 51, lines 5-43);
compares the first embedding to a plurality of stored embeddings respectively corresponding to natural language descriptions of a plurality of available [equipment] operations of the medical device, each equipment operation corresponding to a controllable actuator of the medical device; identifies an equipment operation whose corresponding stored embedding is most similar to the first embedding and whose similarity exceeds a similarity confidence threshold (Fig. 6, step 610, Col 24, line 49-Col 26, line 4, “determine a subset of the device embeddings that are most similar to the translated embedding…utilize cosine similarity processes to determine which of the device embeddings are most similar to the translated embedding…similarity scoring may be utilized to determine which device embeddings are associated with similarity scores that satisfy a threshold score”); and
in response to the similarity exceeding the similarity confidence threshold, instructs, via an instruction command communicated to the medical device the wired or wireless connection, the medical device to perform the equipment operation by activating the controllable actuator corresponding to the equipment operation (Fig. 6, step 612, Col. 26, lines 4-15, Col. 52, lines 45-62, “generate and send an instruction to the components, (e.g., API(s), components, agents, etc.) configured to perform the potential actions included in the selected responses to cause performance of the potential actions (or another component of the system 800 configured to cause the components to perform the potential actions, such as Action plan execution component 816”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system of Voice control in a healthcare facility as taught by Receveur with a method of utilizing large language model (LLM) as taught by Oks to provide improved accuracy of operating devices.
Regarding claim 2, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 1, and Oks further discloses:
wherein the model component generates, via the encoder portion of the large language model, the plurality of stored embeddings, based on the natural language descriptions (Col. 31, line 58-Col. 32- line 9, “the determination of an intent by the IC component 764 is performed using a set of rules or templates that are processed against the incoming text to identify a matching intent”).
Regarding claim 3, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 1, and Receveur further discloses:
wherein the model component prompts the user to confirm the equipment operation, in response to a determination that the equipment operation is associated with more than a threshold level of clinical risk ([0020][0137]-[0140][0172][0248][0249] “determine authorization of users to control medical devices by voice… the authorization or access options may vary and be automatically applied based on a risk profile or risk level of the operation. That is, more risky operations may require two or three of the authorization methodologies to be met prior to use, whereas less risky operations may require only one of the authorization methodologies to be met prior to use … the software of bed 20 determines that charting weight is a higher risk task that requires further authentication of the caregiver”).
Regarding claim 4, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 1, and Receveur further discloses:
wherein: the access component accesses, via the microphone of the medical device, a second natural language sentence spoken by the user of the medical device, wherein the second natural language sentence asks about a medical patient being monitored by the medical device ([0137][0170] a caregiver may say, “hey Centrella, weigh patient” and if bed 30 detects a problem, for example the patient weight is significantly different, it gives the caregiver audible feedback. Thus it keeps monitoring a patient’s weight); and
the model component generates a natural language answer for the second natural language sentence, by executing the large language model on the second natural language sentence in retrieval-augmented generative fashion using a plurality of inferencing task results as references, wherein the plurality of inferencing task results are produced by respectively executing a plurality of artificial intelligence models on health data of the medical patient captured or recorded by the medical device ([0137] after receiving a query, if bed detects a problem, it gives the caregiver audible feedback, otherwise the monitored information is stored in database).
Regarding claim 6, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 1, and Receveur further discloses:
wherein the model component verifies, via voice recognition, that the user is authorized to touchlessly operate the medical device ([0137][0138] “determine authorization of users to control medical devices by voice: (i) an RTLS associates the caregiver with the bed and enables use of voice commands”).
Regarding claim 7, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 1, and Receveur further discloses:
wherein the model component translates the first natural language sentence into a language on which the [large language model] was trained ([0133][0134] a training routine may be implemented by the natural language processing (NLP) software to create the needed digital models).
Receveur does not explicitly teach however Oks does explicitly teach including the bracketed limitation:
wherein the model component translates the first natural language sentence into a language on which the [large language model] was trained (Fig8, large language model orchestrator component 812).
Regarding claims 8-11 and 13-14, Claims 8-11 and 13-14 are the corresponding method claims to system claims 1-4 and 6-7. Therefore, claims 8-11 and 13-14 are rejected using the same rationale as applied to claims 1-4 and 6-7 above.
Regarding claim 15, Claim 15 is the corresponding method claim to system claim1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected suing the same rationale as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the computer program product of claim 16, and Receveur further discloses:
wherein the medical device is a neonatal care-station, and wherein the plurality of available equipment operations comprise: setting an automated alarm threshold of the medical device; deactivating an automated alarm that is sounded by the medical device; displaying patient data that is recorded by the medical device; or adjusting a temperature of the medical device ([0170] “a bed exit system of the patient bed 30 being turned on so as to monitor a position of the patient relative to the bed and to alarm if the patient moves into a position indicative of bed exit or moves toward exiting the bed 30 by a threshold amount”; [0148] “After confirmation that the first caregiver is authorized to control the patient bed, the patient is weighed by the weigh scale and the patient's weight is displayed on the display screen”).
Regarding claim 21, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 1, and Receveur further discloses:
evaluate measured health data acquired by the medical device to determine whether execution of the equipment operation satisfies a predefined safety condition; and instruct the actuator to perform the equipment operation only when the predefined safety condition is satisfied ([0020][0137]-[0140][0172][0248][0249] “determine authorization of users to control medical devices by voice… the authorization or access options may vary and be automatically applied based on a risk profile or risk level of the operation … the software of bed 20 determines that charting weight is a higher risk task that requires further authentication of the caregiver”).
Regarding claim 22, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 21, and Receveur further discloses:
wherein the measured health data comprises a plurality of sensor signals acquired by the medical device, the plurality of sensor signals including at least one of: a physiological monitoring signal, an imaging signal, or an environmental sensor signal ([0020][0137]-[0140][0172][0248][0249] monitoring and charting weight of a patient).
Regarding claim 23, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 21, and Receveur further discloses:
wherein the predefined safety condition is specific to the equipment operation and comprises at least one of: a permissible physiological range, a permissible device temperature, a permissible actuator position, or a permissible patient-safety parameter ([0020][0137]-[0140][0172][0248][0249] “the authorization or access options may vary and be automatically applied based on a risk profile or risk level of the operation”).
Regarding claim 24, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 21, and Receveur further discloses:
wherein when the predefined safety condition is not satisfied, the model component is configured to inhibit execution of the equipment operation and generate a natural language explanation indicating why the equipment operation is unsafe ([0020][0137]-[0140][0172][0248][0249] “the software of bed 20 determines that charting weight is a higher risk task that requires further authentication of the caregiver”).
Regarding claim 26, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 1, and Receveur further discloses:
wherein the model component applies output of a diagnostic machine-learning model executed by the medical device to refine identification of the equipment operation, wherein the diagnostic machine-learning model processes sensor data acquired by the medical device ( fining tune the LLM such that it utilizes a subset of possible options for determining an action to be performed responsive to the voice command and generating/utilizing embeddings of user utterances, devices, and/or other information such as application programming interfaces (APIs) to determine what information is most likely relevant to provide to the LLM during speech processing).
Claim 25 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Receveur et al., (US Pub. 2022/0101847) in view of Oks et al., (US Pat. 12,511,487) and further in view of Baeuml et al., (US Pub. 2024/0311575).
Regarding claim 25, Receveur in view of Oks discloses the system of claim 1.
Receveur in view of Oks does not explicitly teach however Baeuml does explicitly teach:
wherein the similarity confidence threshold is dynamically adjusted based on contextual information obtained from the medical device, including at least one of: a current operational mode, a current patient-monitoring state, or a current sensor-derived workload level (Baeuml, [0075] “determine the dynamic amount to adjust the corresponding NL based output threshold based on, for example, content of a corresponding dialog context for the ongoing dialog”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the system of Voice control in a healthcare facility as taught by Receveur in view of Oks with a method of adjusting threshold value dynamically as taught by Baeuml to provide NL based inputs that build corresponding dialog contexts that can result in desirable NL based outputs being generate and rendered (Baeuml, [0001].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659