DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-17, 19, 20, 23, 24 and 26-28 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van der Loos in view of Rothman, Modarres and Hedtke, and further in view of Doherty. Van der Loos discloses in the Figures and specification a sleep coaching system comprising a sensor configured to measure at least one physiological signal associated with a user (see col. 3, lines 24-31), a device for receiving input data indicating one or more aspects of a user’s behavior (col. 4, lines 46-60), and a processor configured to correlate data associated with the at least one physiological signal with the input data to generate a first set of sleep-related advice (col. 4, line 66 to col. 5, line 27). Van der Loos does not disclose generation of the specific sleep-related advice as recited in claim 1. However, applicant is advised that the content of nonfunctional descriptive material will not overcome the prior art where there is no new and nonobvious functional relationship between the material and the underlying computer system, and where the system merely serves as support for information directed toward conveying meaning to a human reader. See MPEP 2111.05(III). In this case, the content of the sleep-related advice provided to the user has no new or nonobvious functional relationship with the underlying computer system, and is non-functional descriptive material. While Van der Loos does not explicitly disclose the use of a database, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that databases are very well-known, and a common way to store “data accumulated over time” (col. 5, line 25).
With respect to the claim language pertaining to the calculation of a set of sleep-related parameters based on data associated with the received signal, Van Der Loos discloses at col. 4, lines 1-30 that its system is configured to calculate a set of sleep-related parameters, including heart rate, body temperature, position and movement, blood oxygen content, breathing rate, snoring and a count of body shift episodes. These determined parameters are then used to create an index of nightly restlessness, which suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art a “score” representative of the user’s overall sleep quality as recited in claim 1. Van Der Loos further discloses at col. 4, line 66 to col. 5, line 20 that its system comprises lifestyle correction software, which is configured to provide a correlation analysis between “any of the data inputs”, where the correlations are presented to the user to illustrate to the user how lifestyle patterns can have an effect on sleep quality, thus suggesting potential lifestyle changes. This disclosure reads on the “potential parameter changes” as recited in claim 1. Further, the various disclosed correlations of parameters constitute “a plurality of different sleep-related advice data stored in a data storage”, as recited in claim 1, where one or more of these parameter correlations are accessed by the system. The correlations serve as “advice data” when presented to a user. Additionally, the term “advice” is not a structural limitation of the data, but rather is an intended purpose of the data.
Van der Loos does not disclose that the sleep-related parameters comprise a duration of sleep, a number of times awakened and a duration of time spent in different sleep stages as recited. However, Rothman discloses that the sleep-related parameters calculated by its system include a duration of sleep and a number of awakenings (see paragraphs [0042-43] and [0064]), as well as a duration of time spent in different sleep stages (paragraph [0089]). The combined teachings of the prior art references suggest the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Van Der Loos by providing a system which quantifies sleep parameters comprising a duration of sleep, a number of times awakened and a duration of time spent in different sleep stages as an obvious substitution of one known element for another and for the purpose of providing a more comprehensive system of analyzing a user’s sleep parameters.
While Van Der Loos does not explicitly disclose that the illustrated correlations are “for optimizing the score”, any changes made by the user in response to the illustrated parameter correlations would have a natural effect of optimizing the index of nightly restlessness (score). Further, the claim language “for optimizing the score” is functional language, describing the intended use or purpose of the system rather than providing any further discrete functional limitations or method steps. Under MPEP 2114, such language is not sufficient to impart patentability to the claims. Applicant is also reminded that the content of the information displayed by the system, including the content of any advice, is non-functional descriptive material under MPEP 2111.05.
Van der Loos does not disclose the recited use of a band worn on the head to mount the sensor. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Rothman at paragraph [0032] (discussing band 12), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of more securely mounting the sensor(s) at a desired position to generate physiological information. Rothman additionally discloses in Figure 6 and in paragraphs [0022] and [0060-61] an embodiment where its headband comprises physiological sensors 54, 56, 58 configured to measure at least one physiological signal associated with the user when the headband is worn, a controller 62 configured to process the signals received from the sensors, and a communication component 64 coupled to the controller and configured to transmit the processed data. Rothman also discloses at paragraphs [0033] and [0062] the provision of a processor external to the headband and configured to receive processed data from the communication component of the headband device.
Van der Loos as viewed with Rothman does not explicitly disclose the use of a dry biosensor for contacting the user’s skin. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Modarres at col. 6., line 66 to col. 7, line 5, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of locating a sensor at a user’s head without the use of gels and to facilitate placement of sensors at hairy portions of the user’s head.
Van Der Loos as viewed with Rothman and Modarres does not disclose that the advice data is based in part on a previous set of sleep-related advice generated before the first period of time as recited. Hedtke discloses at Figure 6 (see step 630a) and col. 7, lines 33-39 (as well as claim 1) a system for providing advice to a user regarding physiological information where the system is configured to determine whether a piece of advice has been previously provided to the user. If the advice has been previously provided, the rules engine is configured to provide a second piece of advice which is different from the first piece of advice. The second advice is thus based in part on the first advice. Hedtke further discloses at claim 31 that virtual assistance pertaining to the sleep advice is provided via “a textual message, a voice recorded message, a video message, an audio message, a pictorial message, or an email”, thus disclosing the provision of multimedia information “comprising at least one of video data, image data and audio data” as newly recited in claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Van Der Loos as viewed with Rothman and Modarres by providing advice which is based in part on previously given advice for the purpose of encouraging a user to take an action different from a previously advised action, where the previous advice has been determined to be ineffective. While Van Der Loos and Hedtke do not explicitly disclose the use of a graphical user interface to receive and display information, this feature is very well known in the art as disclosed for example by Doherty at col. 9, lines 54-62, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
With respect to claim 2, Van der Loos discloses at col. 4, lines 46-60 the provision of a user interface 106 configured to prompt for and receive the input data. As discussed above, Doherty discloses a graphical user interface configured to receive input data. With respect to claims 3 and 5, Modarres discloses at col. 7, lines 22-26 the provision of alternative embodiments whereby its sensor device is connected either directly to a computing device or to a wireless unit which transmits sensed data to a remotely located processor 20. With respect to claim 6, the devices of both Van der Loos and Modarres both comprise “base stations” configured to record data received from their respective sensor devices. With respect to claim 7, Figure 1 of Modarres shows a laptop which constitutes a “table top unit”. With respect to claim 9, both Van der Loos (col. 5, lines 2-10) and Modarres (see Figures 2 and 3) show that their respective systems are configured to display at least one of a score, a physiological signal, and sleep-related advice. Viewed in combination with the disclosure of multimedia information in Hedtke, the references suggest the claim limitations. With respect to claim 12, Van der Loos discloses at col. 5, line 2-20 the presentation of a correlation of sensor data to input data as recited. With respect to claim 13, Van der Loos discloses at col. 3, lines 23-30 that its sensor is configured to measure various physiological characteristics including temperature and movement. With respect to claim 14, the headband of Rothman is inherently either rigid or flexible. With respect to claim 15, Modarres discloses at col. 6, lines 50-54 that the one or more sensors comprise an electrode configured to contact the user’s skin when mounted on the head. With respect to claim 16, Official Notice is taken that touchscreen devices are a very well-known type of interface, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to claim 17, Van der Loos discloses at col. 4, lines 10-16 the use of a Fourier transform to generate processed sensor data as recited. With respect to claim 19, the use of a database to store and retrieve information is very well-known, as discussed above. With respect to claim 20, Van der Loos discloses at col. 4, lines 49-52 that the input data received through its user interface comprises a user’s caffeine and alcohol consumption. The sleep-related advice derived from that input is thus associated with that input data. Applicant is again advised, with respect to the content of information received and analyzed, that the content of nonfunctional descriptive material will not overcome the prior art where there is no new and nonobvious functional relationship between the material and the underlying computer system under MPEP 2111.05(III). With respect to claim 23, Rothman discloses at paragraph [0058] an embodiment where its headband device comprises a battery power source. With respect to claim 24, the band 12 of Rothman is a headband. With respect to claim 26, the recited use of a predetermined equation with different sleep parameters as variables as recited is disclosed by Doherty at Fig. 4 and col. 9, line 65 to col. 10, line 18, and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of calculating a sleep score based on a plurality of measured sleep parameters. With respect to claim 27, the use of predetermined constants to scale the parameters is suggested by Doherty at col. 11, line 60 to col. 12, line 4, which discusses weighting of the various parameter values. With respect to claim 28, Van der Loos discloses at col. 4, line 65 to col. 5, line 27 a display of correlations based on data relating the sleep-related parameters. Again, the correlations are considered to be “sleep-related advice”.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van der Loos in view of Rothman, Modarres, Hedtke and Doherty, and further in view of Stivoric (US2014/0317119). Van der Loos as viewed in combination with Rothman, Modarres and Hedtke discloses or suggests the claim limitation with the exception of the recited use of a neural net approach as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Stivoric at paragraph [0106], and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Claim 22 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van der Loos in view of Rothman, Modarres, Hedtke and Doherty, and further in view of Kayyali. Van der Loos as viewed in combination with Rothman, Modarres and Hedtke discloses or suggests the claim limitation with the exception of the recited use of an analog filter and gain module as recited. This feature is known in the art, as taught for example by Kayyali at col. 36, lines 40-45 (describing the use of a filter and gain) and col. 42, lines 1-5 (describing the use of an analog filter), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as an obvious substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results and for the purpose of processing the received data as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 2, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The newly added limitations to claims 1, 2 and 9 are taught or suggested by the prior art references, as discussed above.
Conclusion
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 KURT FERNSTROM whose telephone number is (571)272-4422. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached at 571-270-7625. 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.
/KURT FERNSTROM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
July 1, 2025