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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6,8-12,16-18 and 20-21 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (2-6, 8-12, 21 by dependency) recite “the air manifold”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner assumes Applicant is referring to “the at least one air manifold” previously recited.
Claim 1 (2-6, 8-12, 21 by dependency) recite “the controller, wherein the controller comprises …” It is unclear what this limitation means.
Claim 1 (2-6, 8-12, 21 by dependency) recite “one or more neurologic measures of the sleeper comprising use of a model that defines a relationship between log(heart rate) and log(Slow Wave Activity)”. It is unclear if SWA and HR are neurological measures, or if neurological measures are determined from the model. From claim 4, it seems as though SWA is the neurological measure and HR is a cardiac parameter.
Claim 2 (3 by dependency) recites “determine one or more cardiac parameters of the sleeper”. Is this in addition to the HR recited in claim 1?
Claim 3 recites HR, HRV, SDNN, PNN50, and RR interval. However, claim 1 states that only log of HR and SWA are required. The additional metrics recited in Claim 3, and their use is unclear.
Claim 9 recites that “C” can be one of many metrics; however Claim 1 only mentions HR as the parameter.
Claim 16 (17-18, 20 by dependency) recite “one or more neurologic measures of the sleeper comprising use of a model that defines a relationship between log(heart rate) and log(Slow Wave Activity)”. It is unclear if SWA and HR are neurological measures, or if neurological measures are determined from the model. From claim 4, it seems as though SWA is the neurological measure and HR is a cardiac parameter.
Claim 18 recites “a model”. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the model recited in claim 16 or a different model.
Claim 18 recites “a relationship”. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the relationship recited in claim 16 or a different relationship.
Claim 20 recites that “C” can be one of many metrics; however Claim 16 and 18 only mentions HR as the parameter.
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 1-6,8-12,16-18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) identify, from the pressure data, one or more motion parameters; and determine, from the motion parameters, one or more neurologic measures of the sleeper as well as determining cardiac parameters of a user; and identifying, from the cardiac parameters of the user, one or more neurologic measures of the user comprising use of a model that defines a relationship between log(heart rate) and log(slow wave activity).
The abstract idea is part of the Mathematical Concepts and/or Organizing Human Activity group(s) identified in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity; there is no improvement to a computer or other technology; does not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine. The additional elements are identified as follows: a bed having a mattress having two air chambers, one or more tubes configured to connect the two chambers to at least one air manifold; a pressure transducer configured to: sense pressure in the air manifold of a sleeper on the mattress; a controller/one or more processors; and computer-readable instructions. 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, when considered both individually and as a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional computer and data-gathering elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer and data-gathering functions that do not add meaningful limitations to practicing the abstract idea.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by non-patent literature cited herewith (such as previously cited Kortelainen et al. and Laura Schwecherl ; https://web.archive.org/web/20191118152921/https://sleepopolis.com/mattress-reviews/sleep-number-360-i7-smart-bed-review/ (Year: 2019)); patent literature including Palashewski et al. US 20190328146 A1 and Price et al. US 20040194220 A1 as well as non-patent literature of record in the application. Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has held that combining additional elements for data-gathering with abstract ideas does not make a claim patent-eligible. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data gathering that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known data-gathering equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments and Amendments
Regarding 101 Rejections, upon further search and consideration, it was determined that the amended limitations do not overcome the rejection. The rejection is maintained.
Regarding 112B rejections, addition rejections have been presented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights