DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 22 December 2025. Claims 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 21-32 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10 and newly added claims 21-32.
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 Objections
Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 2 recites “the external stimulus” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –the white noise or pink noise external stimulus—
-Claim 2 recites “the external stimulus” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –the white noise or pink noise external stimulus—
-Claim 4 recites “the rate” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –the determined rate—
-Claim 4 recites “the external stimulus” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –the white noise or pink noise external stimulus—
-Claim 4 recites “wherein the second” in line 5. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the second—
-Claim 6 recites “the external stimulus” in line 7. Examiner recommends amending to –the white noise or pink noise external stimulus—
-Claim 6 recites “the rate” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –the determined rate—
-Claim 9 recites “the external stimulus” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –the white noise or pink noise external stimulus—
-Claim 23 recites “the external stimulus” in line 4 and 8. Examiner recommends amending to –the white noise or pink noise external stimulus—
-Claim 26 recites “wherein the one” in line 2. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the one—
-Claim 29 recites “the external stimulus” in line 1. Examiner recommends amending to –the white noise or pink noise external stimulus—
-Claim 30 recites “the sensors” in lines 2-3. Examiner recommends amending to –the one or more sensors—
-Claim 31 recites “the external stimulus” in line 4 and 5. Examiner recommends amending to –the white noise or pink noise external stimulus—
-Claim 32 recites “the external stimulus” in line 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the white noise or pink noise external stimulus—
-Claim 33 recites “the rate” in lines 2 and 3. Examiner recommends amending to –the determined rate—
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 6, 9, 24, 25, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33 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 2 recites “simulated heartbeat” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the simulated heartbeat originally recited in claim 10, lines 7-8.
-Claim 3 recites “simulated respiration” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the simulated respiration originally recited in claim 10, line 8.
-Claim 10 recites “an external stimulus” in line 16, It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the external stimulus originally recited in claim 10, line 6.
-Claim 10 recites “a rate for an external stimulus” in line 22. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the rate for an external stimulus originally recited in claim 10, line 16.
-Claim 10 recites “multiple sleep states” in line 23. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the multiple sleep states in lines 20-21.
-Claim 23 recites “a user” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the person originally referenced in claim 1, line 3.
-Claim 23 recites “an upcoming physical event” in line 7. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the upcoming physical event originally referenced in claim 23, line 6.
-Claim 23 recites “a user” in line 8. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the person originally referenced in claim 1, line 3 or the user referenced in claim 23, line 4.
-Claim 24 recites “a heartbeat and/or respiration” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the heartbeat and/or respiration originally referenced in claim 10, line 8.
-Claim 26 recites “respiration and/or a heartbeat” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the heartbeat and/or respiration originally referenced in claim 10, line 8.
-Claim 27 recites “white or pink noise” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the white or pink noise external stimulus originally referenced in claim 1, line 14.
-Claim 30 recites “signal” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the signals referenced in claim 1, line 10.
-Claim 31 recites “a heartbeat and respiration” in line 4. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the heartbeat and/or respiration originally referenced in claim 10, line 8.
-Claim 32 recites “more quickly transition to sleep states” in line 3. It is unclear what this limitation is referring to in terms of more quickly. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this is referring to the first, second, and third sleep states in comparison to one another or a separate embodiment.
-Claim 33 recites “rates” in line 3. It is unclear which rates are being referred to in this embodiment since variations in the rate was recited in singularity. Further clarification should be provided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10, 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashby (U.S. 20160121074).
Regarding Claim 10, Ashby teaches a system comprising:
a bed having a mattress [0063]:
one or more sensors configured to detect motion of a person positioned on the mattress;
one or more transducers configured to impart an external stimulus into a sleeping environment of the person [0074], wherein the external stimulus comprises at least one of a simulated heartbeat and a simulated respiration [0073] and [0083];
one or more processors memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: receiving signals from the one or more sensors processing the received signals to determine a current sleep state of the person [0072] and [0075];
in response to determining the current sleep state of the person, determining a rate for an external stimulus for transitioning the person from the current sleep state to a second sleep state [0083]; controlling the one or more transducers to provide the external stimulus to the sleeping environment of the person at the determined rate [0084]; and receiving user input indicating which sleep state out of multiple sleep states that the person desires to improve [0061] and [0096]; and determining a rate for an external stimulus for transitioning the person from the current sleep state to the sleep state out of multiple sleep states that the person desires to improve [0061] and [0096].
Regarding Claim 2, Ashby further teaches wherein the one or more transducers comprises a speaker and the external stimulus is audio of a simulated heartbeat played through the speaker, the simulated heartbeat having the determined rate [0073], [0083], and [0085].
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 22, 27, 30, 33, 6, 9, 31, 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashby (U.S. 20160121074) in view of Yamaki (U.S. 10857323).
Regarding Claim 1, Ashby teaches a system comprising: a bed having a mattress [0063];
one or more sensors configured to detect motion of a person positioned on the mattress [0076];
one or more transducers comprising a speaker configured to impart an external stimulus into a sleeping environment of the person [0074]—reference to speaker/transducer;
one or more processors [0073];
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations including: receiving signals from the one or more sensors [0072];
processing the received signals to determine a current sleep state of the person [0075];
Ashby is silent on in response to determining the current sleep state of the person, determining a rate for a white noise or pink noise external stimulus played through the speaker for transitioning the person from the current sleep state to a second sleep state; and controlling the one or more transducers comprising the speaker to provide the white noise or pink noise external stimulus to the sleeping environment of the person at the determined rate. Yamaki teaches in response to determining the current sleep state of the person [Col 4, lines 54-58], determining a rate for a white noise or pink noise external stimulus played through the speaker for transitioning the person from the current sleep state to a second sleep state [Fig. 10, element Sa3 and Sa7-Sa8]; and controlling the one or more transducers comprising the speaker to provide the white noise or pink noise external stimulus to the sleeping environment of the person at the determined rate [Col 11, lines 43-65].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use control stimulus rate to transition the user’s sleep state as taught by Yamaki to provide a stimulus to the user as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses adjusting sound based on programming [0084] with Yamaki because Yamaki teaches coordinating sound switching and adjustments based on cycles in accordance with biological information [Col 1, lines 44-53]
Regarding Claim 4, Ashby is silent on wherein the rate is a first rate and the external stimulus is a first external stimulus, the operations further including: determining a second rate for a second external stimulus for transitioning the person from the current sleep state to the second sleep state, the second rate being different from the first rate, wherein the second rate is determined based on the current sleep state of the person. Yamaki teaches wherein the rate is a first rate and the external stimulus is a first external stimulus [Fig. 10, element Sa3-Sa4], the operations further including:
determining a second rate for a second external stimulus for transitioning the person from the current sleep state to the second sleep state [Fig. 10, elements Sa5-Sa8], the second rate being different from the first rate [Col 11, lines 19-23]—reference to switching cycles being determined for each period, wherein the second rate is determined based on the current sleep state of the person [Col 12, 1-25]—reference to generating a new sound based on information collected from heartbeat and breathing biological cycle detector that corresponds to sleep cycles according to the estimator [Col 21, lines 59-Col 22, line 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use include a second rate of change as taught by Yamaki to provide a stimulus to the user as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses changing sound incrementally during certain periods of time [0014] with Yamaki because Yamaki teaches estimating a state of a user based on changes in heart rate and breathing rate and body movements [Col 4, lines 64-67] and [Col 5, lines 1-3].
Regarding Claim 22, Ashby is silent on wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect respiration and heart rate in addition to the motion. Yamaki teaches wherein the one or more sensors are configured to detect respiration and heart rate in addition to the motion [Col 2, lines 57-60].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use include a heart rate, breathing and motion detection capability as taught by Yamaki to estimate a state of the person as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses the association between sleep state, breathing, and heart rate [0050] with Yamaki because Yamaki teaches estimating a state of a user based on changes in heart rate and breathing rate and body movements [Col 4, lines 64-67] and [Col 5, lines 1-3].
Regarding Claim 27, Ashby is silent on wherein the white noise or pink noise external stimulus comprises a wave that is combined with white or pink noise. Yamaki teaches wherein the white noise or pink noise external stimulus comprises a wave that is combined with white or pink noise [Col 8, lines 18-34]—discusses using a plurality of sounds such as ambient noise and sound of waves.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use include waves and ambient noises as taught by Yamaki to approximate a heartbeat as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses using ocean, music and other combinations thereof [0085] with Yamaki because Yamaki teaches the use of a plurality of sound groups to manage sound information for a breathing cycle [Col 8, lines 18-29].
Regarding Claim 30, Ashby further teaches wherein the operations further comprise: filtering out signal caused by the one or more transducers when detecting via the sensors [0091]—references filtering signals to remove noise and distortions.
Regarding Claim 33, Ashby is silent on wherein the operations further comprise: trying different variations in the rate; and tracking the different variations in the rate to determine which rates achieve most efficient sleep stage transition. Yamaki teaches wherein the operations further comprise:
trying different variations in the rate [Col 15, lines 57-58]; and
tracking the different variations in the rate to determine which rates achieve most efficient sleep stage transition [Col 21, lines 17-32]—reference to increasing variations to enhance sleep.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use variations of sound as taught by Yamaki to enhance sleep as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses using sounds to influence a heartbeat to trend towards efficient sleep [0048] with Yamaki because Yamaki teaches linking these sound variations and switching cycles to physical and mental states of the user to further enhance sleep [Col 25, lines 45-53].
Regarding Claim 6, Ashby teaches wherein the rate is a first rate [Fig. 5, element 508], the operations further including:
receiving additional signals from the one or more sensors [0086];
processing the received additional signals to determine an updated sleep state of the person [0087];
Ashby is silent on in response to determining the updated sleep state of the person, determining a second rate for the external stimulus for transitioning the person from the updated sleep state to a third sleep state, the second rate being different from the first rate; and controlling the one or more transducers to provide the external stimulus to the sleeping environment of the person at the second rate. Yamaki teaches in response to determining the updated sleep state of the person, determining a second rate for the external stimulus for transitioning the person from the updated sleep state to a third sleep state [Fig. 10, elements Sa5-Sa8],
the second rate being different from the first rate [Col 11, lines 24-33]; and controlling the one or more transducers to provide the external stimulus to the sleeping environment of the person at the second rate [Col 11, lines 33-41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sound data and stimulus to transition the user from a second to third sleep state as taught by Yamaki to allow for a continued process as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses the process of utilizing the adjustment system to achieve a target heart rate in the user in an incremental manner to allow for repetition of steps [0070] with Yamaki because Yamaki teaches a similar repetitive or looped nature of the process that determines whether certain conditions are met or not met [Col 12, lines 35-45].
Regarding Claim 9, Ashby is silent on wherein the third sleep state is an awake sleep state and controlling the one or more transducers to provide the external stimulus to the sleeping environment of the person at the second rate is performed at a time that is determined based on a specified awake time for the person. Yamaki teaches wherein the third sleep state is an awake sleep state [Col 4, lines 54-58] and controlling the one or more transducers to provide the external stimulus to the sleeping environment of the person at the second rate is performed at a time that is determined based on a specified awake time for the person [Col 23, lines 7-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use correlate one of the sleep states with an awake state as taught by Yamaki to control the stimulus in an appropriate manner considering the person is awake as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses tailoring the stimulus to adjust the system according to the user’s sleep cycle [0075] with Yamaki because Yamaki teaches the use of this process to greatly enhance quality of sleep [Col 23, lines 28-32].
Regarding Claim 31, Ashby is silent on wherein the operations further comprise: sensing heartbeat and respiration via the one or more sensors without generating the external stimulus at a plurality of first periods; and generating the external stimulus without sensing heartbeat and respiration via the one or more sensors during a plurality of second periods between the plurality of first periods. Yamaki teaches wherein the operations further comprise: sensing heartbeat and respiration via the one or more sensors without generating the external stimulus at a plurality of first periods [Col 12, lines 26-35]—describes termination of playback of sound information based on the input device during “current time” has already passed; and
generating the external stimulus without sensing heartbeat and respiration via the one or more sensors during a plurality of second periods between the plurality of first periods [Col 8, lines 18-34]—reference to first group, second group and distinguishing these groups from one another to include ambient sound generated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize varying intervals with different sounds as taught by Yamaki to control the stimulus in an appropriate manner considering the person’s sleep or awake state as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses tailoring the stimulus to adjust the system according to the user’s sleep cycle [0075] with Yamaki because Yamaki teaches the use of prescribed rules to select sound information [Col 9, lines 37-46].
Regarding Claim 32, Ashby is silent on wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an input indicating a duration of a shortened sleep session; and generating the external stimulus to more quickly transition to sleep states and control sleep state duration as a function of the duration indicated by the input. Yamaki teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an input indicating a duration of a shortened sleep session [Col 23, lines 1-7]; and
generating the external stimulus to more quickly transition to sleep states and control sleep state duration as a function of the duration indicated by the input [Col 23, lines 13-20].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate sounds when transitioning a user through different sleep and awake states as taught by Yamaki to pull from historical and database data to enhance sleep quality as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses using database information relevant to the user [0077] with Yamaki because Yamaki teaches use of a history table TBLa to increase probability that the user is able transition quickly [Col 23, lines 20-28].
Claim(s) 24, 25, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashby (U.S. 20160121074) in view of Demirli (U.S. 20190200777).
Regarding Claim 24, Ashby is silent on wherein the one or more transducers comprises one or more fluid hoses through which fluid is pumped at regular intervals to simulate a heartbeat and/or respiration. Demirli teaches wherein the one or more transducers comprises one or more fluid hoses [0239] through which fluid is pumped at regular intervals to simulate a heartbeat and/or respiration [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a hose, pump, fluid and air as taught by Demirli to simulate heartbeat and/or respiration as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses generating a simulated heart rate to encourage a user’s heart rate towards that attributed to efficient sleep [0048] with Demirli because Demirli teaches this concept to correspond to motion, heartbeat or respiration [0051].
Regarding Claim 25, Ashby is silent on wherein the one or more transducers comprises one or more articulation motors for articulating portions of a sleep surface of the mattress. Demirli teaches wherein the one or more transducers comprises one or more articulation motors for articulating portions of a sleep surface of the mattress 0116]—reference to a pump motor increasing pressure of an air chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a motor as taught by Demirli to change aspects of a sleep surface as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses incorporation of the system into a surface of a mattress [0065] with Demirli because Demirli teaches the use of the motor and associated components to regulate the flow of fluid between the pump and the air chambers of the mattress [0039].
Regarding Claim 26, Ashby is silent on wherein the mattress comprises an air chamber connected to a pump that is configured to adjust firmness of the mattress, wherein the one or more transducers comprises an additional pump that inflates and deflates a secondary air chamber to simulate respiration and/or a heartbeat. Demirli teaches wherein the mattress comprises an air chamber connected to a pump that is configured to adjust firmness of the mattress [0037]—reference to adjustment of bed firmness, wherein the one or more transducers comprises an additional pump that inflates and deflates a secondary air chamber to simulate respiration and/or a heartbeat [Fig. 1, elements 114A, and 114B], [0036]and [0051].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a secondary chamber system as taught by Demirli to change aspects of a sleep surface as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses providing the user with a comfortable mattress [0065] with Demirli because Demirli teaches other aspects related to comfort of the user when implementing the device [0053].
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashby (U.S. 20160121074) in view of Strasser (U.S. 20210106238).
Regarding Claim 29, Ashby is silent on wherein the external stimulus comprises triangular probability distribution function noise. Strasser teaches wherein the external stimulus comprises triangular probability distribution function noise [Fig. 58, “TINN Triangular Index”] and [0191].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize triangular probability distributions as taught by Strasser to process data related to baseline as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses establishing sleeping trends and baseline heart rates [0059] with Strasser because Strasser teaches this technique to differentiate changes from healthy learned or individualized baseline data [0192].
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashby (U.S. 20160121074) in view of Yamaki (U.S. 10857323) and in further view of Demirli (U.S. 20190200777).
Regarding Claim 21, Ashby and Yamaki are silent on wherein the mattress comprises: means to reduce or eliminate cross talk between two sides of the bed to reduce or eliminate a first occupant on a first side of the bed from having their heartbeat and/or respiration synchronize with a simulated heartbeat and/or respiration intended for a second other occupant. Demirli teaches wherein the mattress comprises:
means to reduce or eliminate cross talk between two sides of the bed to reduce or eliminate a first occupant on a first side of the bed from having their heartbeat and/or respiration synchronize with a simulated heartbeat and/or respiration intended for a second other occupant [0033] and [0228]—reference to disentangling cross talk between left and right-side users based on snore/breath parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use include a mechanism to disentangle cross talk of collected noises from the separate users as taught by Demirli to control sleep parameters as suggested by Ashby and Yamaki, as Ashby discusses the use of learning algorithms to increase effectiveness of helping the user to sleep [0087] and Yamaki which discusses the use of the system to more readily recognize his/her own biological cycles and improve sleep [Col 14, lines 26-29] with Demirli because Demirli teaches the likeliness of the system to pick up the acoustic phenomena created by the other sleep [0033].
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashby (U.S. 20160121074) in view of Yamaki (U.S. 10857323) and in further view of Jantunen (U.S. 20190231256).
Regarding Claim 23, Ashby and Yamaki are silent on wherein the operations further include: receiving an input indicating an upcoming cognitive event; in response to receiving the input indicating an upcoming cognitive event, controlling the one or more transducers to provide the external stimulus to guide a user to cognitive repair; receiving an input indicating an upcoming physical event; and in response to receiving the input indicating an upcoming physical event, controlling the one or more transducers to provide the external stimulus to guide a user to physical repair.
Jantunen teaches wherein the operations further include:
receiving an input indicating an upcoming cognitive event [0130]—reference to a cognitive test;
in response to receiving the input indicating an upcoming cognitive event [0131],
controlling the one or more transducers to provide the external stimulus to guide a user to cognitive repair [0135]—reference to a stimulus loop is then triggered;
receiving an input indicating an upcoming physical event [0103]—where the user is interpreted as a sports coach/manager; and
in response to receiving the input indicating an upcoming physical event [0103]—reference to the coach wanting the team to be awake and refreshed for a football match,
controlling the one or more transducers to provide the external stimulus to guide a user to physical repair [0105]—receiving audio stimuli to achieve target sleep outcome as mentioned in [0103].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sleep control techniques to impact physical and cognitive events of the user as taught by Jantunen to enhance and improve sleep conditions as suggested by Ashby and Yamaki, as Ashby discusses correlating certain bio signals such as heart rate with effectiveness of falling asleep [0087] and Yamaki which discusses enhancing quality of sleep based on sound selection for physical and mental states [Col 23, lines 25-32] with Jantunen because Jantunen teaches the likeliness of the system to pick up the acoustic phenomena created by the other sleep [0033].
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashby (U.S. 20160121074) in view of Yamaki (U.S. 10857323) and in further view of Burton (U.S. 20210169417).
Regarding Claim 28, Ashby and Yamaki are silent on wherein the wave that is combined to form the white noise or pink noise external stimulus includes at least a square wave, a triangle wave, a sawtooth wave, or a trapezoidal wave. Burton teaches wherein the wave that is combined to form the white noise or pink noise external stimulus includes at least a square wave, a triangle wave, a sawtooth wave, or a trapezoidal wave [3327].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include different wave types as taught by Burton to provide a repetitive sound stimulus as suggested by Ashby, and Yamaki as Ashby discusses repeating the sounds and process until the desired heart rate is achieved [0056] and Yamaki which discloses repeating sound information for a breathing cycle continuously [Col 9, lines 41-44] with Burton because Burton teaches the use of repetitious cyclic patterns for data and sound signals that may be of a totally randomized data type [3327].
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashby (U.S. 20160121074) in view of Groves (U.S. 20070179334).
Regarding Claim 3, Ashby is silent on wherein the external stimulus is a simulated respiration at the determined rate. Groves teaches wherein the external stimulus is a simulated respiration at the determined rate [Abstract; “The fluid pump modulates fluid into and/or out of the mattress, which may simulate the feel and/or sound of a human breathing.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use respiration simulation as taught by Groves to provide an external stimulus as suggested by Ashby, as Ashby discusses the use of different sounds (other than heartbeats) that can be mimicked by the user’s heart [0085] with Groves because Groves teaches a device that controls the rate of the sound of breathing based on the control module, and signals received [0012].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the specification, drawing and claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive however, new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 4, 6-11, 13, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C.101 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments filed 22 December 2025 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20 under 35 U.S.C.102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, new rejections are presented above in light of the amendments for claims 1 and 4 citing Ashby in view of Yamaki. Regarding Claims 10 and 2, applicant contends that the cited reference Ashby does not teach the limitations “receiving user input indicating which sleep state out of multiple sleep states that the person desires to improve” and “to the sleep state out of multiple sleep states that the person desires to improve”. The examiner further cites the previously recited sections of text recited in the last office action dated 18 August 2025 in support of both limitations and in relation to applicant arguments. Paragraph [0061] includes reference to the user controlling the system, providing instruction to the system and activating said system. Paragraph [0096] goes into the specifics of the multiple sleep cycles and transitions to and from these sleep cycle that the user is capable of undergoing. This citation in its entirety is based on the opening sentence that introduces the user as having a sleep disorder where the desired multiple sleep states would include any iteration of sleep states that involve the user staying asleep as indicated in the reference. Further the reference described the user progressing (while asleep) through REM sleep, non-REM sleep to a wake cycle. In view of the foregoing, the previously presented rejections citing Ashby are maintained.
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 BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791