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 .
Applicant’s arguments filed in the reply on March 31, 2026 were received and fully considered. Claims 1, 9-10, 15, and 16 were amended. Claim 8 was cancelled. Claims 22-24 were added. Please see below for more detail.
Claim Objections
The Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 15, the phrase “determine in parallel process a personalized adaptive prior probability particular to the person in dependence of the motion values, in a distribution of motion values over the respective epochs, that are larger than a reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero,” should be replaced with – determine, in a parallel process, a personalized adaptive prior probability particular to the person in dependence of the motion values, in a distribution of motion values over the respective epochs, that are larger than a reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero,-- for grammatical clarity.
In Claim 16, the phrase “determine in parallel process a personalized adaptive prior probability particular to the person in dependence of the motion values, in a distribution of motion values over the respective epochs, that are larger than a reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero,” should be replaced with – determine, in a parallel process, a personalized adaptive prior probability particular to the person in dependence of the motion values, in a distribution of motion values over the respective epochs, that are larger than a reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero,-- for grammatical clarity.
Appropriate correction is required and applicant should carefully review the Claims for any other informalities.
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, 9-16, 19-20, and 22-24 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim(s) recites “process video frames to execute an algorithm that determines a sleep state and a wake state of the person based on the video frames, and to provide output indicating the sleep state and the wake state determined by the algorithm,”
“determine an initial set of classifiers of the respective epochs by classifying the respective sets of features relating to the respective epoch as being representative of the sleep state or the wake state,”
“determine in a parallel process a personalized adaptive prior probability particular to the person in dependence of the motion values based on the number of motion values that are larger than the reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero,”
“determine a final set of classifiers indicating the sleep state and wake state of the person by applying the adaptive prior probability to the initial set of classifiers,”
“determine a wake-sleep pattern of the person based on the final set of classifiers during the time period;”
which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“capture a sequence of video frames of the person during a time period”
“quantify body motion of the person from the video frames as motion values over time;”
“determine a motion value-time relation based on the motion values over time,”
“determine sets of features relating to respective epoch in the motion value-time relation by extracting a plurality of different features from the motion values on each of the respective epochs, wherein the plurality of different features are based on (i) a mean of the motion values in each of the respective epochs and (ii) a number of motion values larger than a reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero in each of the respective epochs,”
“a display configured to display the wake-sleep pattern for monitoring the wake-sleep behavior of the person.”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic post solution activities.
Furthermore, video cameras are general fields of use and processing units are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of combining processed motion features, creating classification models of sleep and wake, applying adaptive prior probability to motion data classification, and then optimizing the classifications of sleep and wake using the features and adaptive prior probability and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 4-6, 9-14, 20, and 22-24 also do not add significantly more to the exception as they merely add detail to the mental steps, add mental steps, and add extrasolution activities.
Regarding Claim 4, the added limitations of the claim provide sufficient detail to outline a mathematical process as one of the determinations of the mental steps. Thus this specific claim amounts to an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical calculation.
Regarding Claim 5, the added limitations of the claim provide sufficient detail to outline a mathematical process as one of the determinations of the mental steps. Thus this specific claim amounts to an abstract idea of both a mental process and mathematical calculation.
Regarding Claim 15, the claim(s) recites “determine an initial set of classifiers of the respective epochs by classifying the respective sets of features relating to the respective epoch as being representative of a sleep state or a wake state of the person;”
“determine in parallel process a personalized adaptive prior probability particular to the person in dependence of the motion values based on the number of motion values that are larger than the reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero,”
“apply the adaptive prior probability to the initial set of classifiers to determine a final set of classifiers indicating the sleep state and wake state;”
“determine a wake-sleep pattern of the person based on the final set of classifiers during the time period;”
which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“receive video frames of the person captured by a video camera during a time period;”
“quantify body motion of the person from the video frames as motion values over time;”
“determine a motion value-time relation based on the motion values over time,”
“determine sets of features relating to respective epoch in the motion value-time relation by extracting a plurality of different features from the motion values on each of the respective epochs wherein the plurality of different features are based on (i) a mean of the motion values in each of the respective epochs and (ii) a number of motion values larger than a reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero in each of the respective epochs,”
“cause the wake-sleep pattern to be displayed for monitoring wake-sleep behavior of the person.”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activities.
Furthermore, video cameras are general fields of use and non-transitory computer readable mediums and processing units are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of combining processed motion features, creating classification models of sleep and wake, applying adaptive prior probability to motion data classification, and then optimizing the classifications of sleep and wake using the features and adaptive prior probability and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim(s) recites “determining an initial set of classifiers of the respective epochs by classifying the respective sets of features relating to the respective epoch as being representative of a sleep state or a wake state of the person;”
“determining in parallel process a personalized adaptive prior probability particular to the person in dependence of the motion values based on the number of motion values that are larger than the reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero;”
“applying the adaptive prior probability to the initial set of classifiers to determine a final set of classifiers indicating the sleep state and wake state;”
“determining a wake-sleep pattern of the person based on the final set of classifiers during the time period;”
which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“receiving video frames of the person captured”
“quantifying body motion of the person from the video frames as motion values over time;”
“determining a motion value-time relation based on motion values over time,”
“determining sets of features relating to respective epoch in the motion value-time relation by extracting a plurality of different features from the motion values on each of the respective epochs wherein the plurality of different features are based on (i) a mean of the motion values in each of the respective epochs and (ii) a number of motion values larger than a reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero in each of the respective epochs,”
“display the wake-sleep pattern for monitoring the wake-sleep behavior of the person.”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activities.
Furthermore, video cameras are general fields of use and processing units are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of combining processed motion features, creating classification models of sleep and wake, applying adaptive prior probability to motion data classification, and then optimizing the classifications of sleep and wake using the features and adaptive prior probability and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 19 also does not add significantly more to the exception as it merely adds a mental step.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1 4-6, 9-16, 19-20, and 22-24 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office action. See Final Rejection dated 8/29/2025 for further details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/31/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections of Claim 5, particularly noting that the claim does not recite a particular mathematical concept has been fully considered, and is persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/31/2026 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections of Claim 4, particularly noting that the claim does not recite a particular mathematical concept has been fully considered, but is not persuasive. The claim outlines a particular mathematical relationships used as part of the mental process to identify the wake-sleep pattern of the subject. These limitations are not general recitations of mathematical concepts, but rather a mathematical concept utilized specifically to identify the wake-sleep pattern of a patient.
Specifically, for Claim 4, the mathematical relationship outlined is
f
N
e
p
o
c
h
s
=
P
l
o
w
,
N
e
p
o
c
h
s
<
T
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
P
h
i
g
h
,
N
e
p
o
c
h
s
≥
T
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
Applicant’s remaining amendments and arguments filed 12/02/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that, with respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims do not recite a mental process as the newly added limitation of determining a wake-sleep pattern of the person during the time period cannot be practically be performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The time period is not limited in size. One of ordinary skill in the art during, for example a minute long time period with received data based on “(i) a mean of the motion values in each of the respective epochs and (ii) a number of motion values larger than a reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero in each of the respective epochs” can make a decision of sleep-wake pattern, while considering an adaptive prior probability of the patient. And because the threshold for a reference motion value of comparison can be zero, then all motions can potentially be considered and the analysis of adaptive prior probability is not further limited. Because of the high generality of the added limitation, Examiner considers the practitioner’s discretion as remaining quite broad in terms of their decision on the sleep-wake pattern during a current epoch, thus reflecting a limitation that can easily be performed mentally.
Applicant then argues on pages 12-14 of the Remarks that, with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claims reflect an improvement in automated sleep monitoring by reliably monitoring a person’s sleep and wake state without needing to apply expensive equipment. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the previous office action, while the claims could recite an improvement, this improvement seems localized to the classifier analysis to reduce the computational expense of automated video-based sleep monitoring. However, the classifier analysis is considered by the examiner to be mental steps and the mental steps alone cannot provide the improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Furthermore, it unclear if the improvement over the prior art is truly captured by the claim language. From the review of the Specification filed 3/03/2021, pages 10-14, the algorithm for wake-sleep pattern is limited to four particular features. Examiner recognizes that the high accuracy outlined in Tables on pages 13-14 of the Specification with the use of minimal features is an improvement over the prior art, but the newly added language does not limit the amount of features even if they must be based on the two particular parameters of “(i) a mean of the motion values in each of the respective epochs and (ii) a number of motion values larger than a reference motion value that is equal to or higher than zero in each of the respective epochs” The minimal features needed reduces the required computation and thus computational expense and the claim language still does not have a limit on the set of features. The claim language can be met by a practitioner using a large number of features, outputting a high accuracy wake-sleep pattern, but this would no longer be computationally inexpensive. If Applicant’s argument is based on cost, the claim language should reflect the characteristics that make the analysis inexpensive and limit the features. Examiner suggests amendments that include the language of “consist of” with the parameters of the newly added claims or potentially language that limits the number of applied features to four.
Applicant then argues on pages 14 of the Remarks that, with respect to Step 2B, the claims considered as a whole provide an improvement in the technological field of automated sleep monitoring. Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons given above. Further, overcoming the 35 USC 101 rejection by Step 2B utilizes a re-evaluation of limitations outside of the abstract idea. Currently, the additional claim limitations outside of the abstract idea amount to necessary extrasolution data gathering activity to provide the input data to be mentally processed and generic postsolution activity to provide the results of the mental process. However, Examiner recognizes that the specific characteristics of 3D recursive search motion estimation make it robust to scene changes as outlined on page 9 of the Specification. Examiner believes a limiting of the amount of features utilized by the analysis and the addition of the 3D recursive search motion estimation could be persuasive under Step 2B, showing that the claim as a whole is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the prior art.
The rejection stands.
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 JAIRO H PORTILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:15 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/JAIRO H. PORTILLO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/PUYA AGAHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights