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 .
Election/Restrictions
As explained in the interview of 03/27/2026, claim 17 is subject to a restriction requirement, since amended claim 17 is now a method and original claim 17 was a system claim. Newly amended claims 17-20 are directed to an invention that lacks unity from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claims 1-11, drawn to a system for determining an intervention action.
Group II, claims 17-20, drawn to a method for determining a probability of a user transitioning from an awake to a sleep state.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of obtaining data indicative of a current state of a user, inputting that data into a predictive data model, and detecting a probability of a user transitioning sleep states, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Chan et al. (US 2015/0190086). Chan discloses detecting sleep stages of a user including obtaining data indicative of a current state of a user, inputting that data into a predictive data model, and detecting a probability of a user transitioning sleep states (e.g. Par. [0016], [0018]: health information of the user is measured; Pars. [0026]-[0027]: features determined for each epoch to classify the sleep stages; Pars. [0041]-[0043]: the hidden Markov model predicts the sequence of sleep stages, including going from awake to the first stage; Par. [0045]: graph 306 that shows the different sleep stages predicted by the model at different times; Fig. 3: graph 306).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 1-11 are under examination.
Remarks
This action is in response to the remarks filed 04/02/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 12-20 being withdrawn. Claims 1-11 are examined in the office action below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the objection of claims 2, 4-6, 8-11, 18, and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 18 and 20 have been withdrawn, as explained above. The objection of claims 2, 4, 5, and 8-11 has been withdrawn. Claim 6 is objected to as explained in the office action below.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 18 have been fully considered. Claim 18 has been withdrawn, as explained above. Therefore, this rejection is moot.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. Independent claim 1 has been amended to include input circuitry, inputting a feature set, and detecting a pattern based on an output of the predictive data model. Applicant argues that Molina fails to disclose the amended limitations. However, this is not found to be persuasive. In the 01/02/2026 non-final rejection, Chan was used to disclose these limitations. Molina was used to disclose the limitations of selecting an intervention action and communicating a message to the user. Therefore, Chan and Molina are still eligible as prior art. The claims are now rejected as explained in the office action below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 04/02/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-11 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Rejection of claims 1-11 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101
Independent claim 1 has been amended to include input circuitry, inputting a feature set, and detecting a pattern based on an output of the predictive data model. Claims 17-20 have been withdrawn, as explained above. Applicant argues that the claimed limitations cannot be performed in a human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As recited the claims require obtaining data indicative of a user’s current state, inputting a feature set into a predictive data model, detecting a pattern based on an output of the model, detecting a probability of the user transitioning from an awake state to a sleep state based on the pattern, select an intervention action based on the pattern and probability, and communicate a message to the user. These limitations can be performed in the mind or using pen and paper or generic computing components. For example, determining a probability a user will transition between sleep stages in the context of this claim encompasses a user collecting patient psychophysiological data, inputting a feature set into a predictive data model, using the predictive data model to detect a pattern in the collected data, and based on the pattern, determining and communicating to the patient an intervention action that increases the probability of going from an awake to a sleep state. The steps of receiving patient data and storing a predictive data model are considered to be the pre-solution activity of data gathering by no more than routine means. The steps of detecting a pattern and selecting an intervention action based on the pattern are considered to be data analysis steps. The step of communicating a message to the user is considered to be a data output step.
The additional elements of the input circuitry, memory circuitry, and processing circuitry are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components for inputting, processing, and storing data). The wearable sensor in claim 10 is generic structure for the insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), claims that require a computer can still recite a mental process.
Therefore, there is no further description, in the claims or the specification, of any particular technology for performing the steps recited in the claim other than generic computer components used in their ordinary capacity as tools to apply the abstract idea. Nor does the claimed invention use a particular, or special, machine. In other words, the claims “are not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus” capable of rescuing them from the realm of an abstract idea. Further, these components are being used to perform the extra-solution activity of data gathering and analysis (i.e. an insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the claims do not recite any additional elements that: (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are applied with any particular machine, (3) effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Please See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(c), (e)-(h). Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 8, “and as associated with the detected pattern” is confusing and grammatically incorrect.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system for determining a probability a user will transition between sleep stages. To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04. The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, and thus meet the requirements for step 1.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claim 1 recites a system for determining a probability a user will transition between sleep stages, comprising obtaining data indicative of a user’s current state, inputting a feature set into a predictive data model, detecting a pattern based on an output of the model, detecting a probability of the user transitioning from an awake state to a sleep state based on the pattern, select an intervention action based on the pattern and probability, and communicate a message to the user.
The limitation of determining a probability a user will transition between sleep stages, as drafted in claims 1-11, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or using pen and paper. For example, determining a probability a user will transition between sleep stages in the context of this claim encompasses a user collecting patient psychophysiological data, using a predictive data model to detect a pattern in the collected data, and based on the pattern, determining and communicating to the patient an intervention action that increases the probability of going from an awake to a sleep state.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
As claimed and understood, the crux of the invention is the data analysis performed in order to select the intervention action. The steps of receiving patient data and storing a predictive data model are considered to be the pre-solution activity of data gathering by no more than routine means. The steps of detecting a pattern and selecting an intervention action based on the pattern are considered to be data analysis steps. The step of communicating a message to the user is considered to be a data output step.
The additional elements of the input circuitry, memory circuitry, and processing circuitry are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components for inputting, processing, and storing data). The wearable sensor in claim 10 is generic structure for the insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering. Specifically, these additional elements are generically recited computing elements that perform the steps of gathering, analyzing, and outputting data.
Accordingly, these additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
The additional elements when considered individually and in combination is not enough to qualify as significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of input circuitry, memory circuitry, and processing circuitry amounts to no more than generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The wearable sensor in claim 10 is generic structure for the insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering. Furthermore, the additional elements do not amount to more than generically linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-11 depend on claim 1 and recite the same abstract idea as claim 1 from which they depend. Further, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the additional limitations recited in claims 2-9 (i.e. further defining the processing steps) are further data analysis steps. The additional limitations recited in claim 11 (i.e. receiving additional patient data) is a further data gathering step. The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception explained above (the abstract idea). Looking at the 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 any technology or includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provides a conventional computer implementation, i.e. the computer (processor) is simply a tool to perform the claimed invention.
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.
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 1-9 and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0190086 – APPLICANT CITED ON 09/19/2022 IDS), hereinafter Chan, further in view of Molina et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0368755 – APPLICANT CITED ON 09/19/2022 IDS), hereinafter Molina.
Regarding claim 1, Chan discloses a system (e.g. Abstract) comprising:
memory circuitry configured to store a predictive data model indicative of different patterns and probabilities of a user transitioning from an awake state to a sleep state (e.g. Par. [0006]: memory; Pars. [0041]-[0042]: machine learning classifier and Hidden Markov Model used to determine probabilities of transitioning between sleep stages);
input circuitry configured to obtain data indicative of a current psychophysiological state of the user (e.g. Par. [0016], [0018]: health information of the user is measured); and
processing circuitry (e.g. Par. [0018]: processor 104) configured to:
obtain, using the input circuitry, the data indicative of the current psychophysiological state of the user (e.g. Par. [0016], [0018]: health information of the user is measured);
input a feature set related to the data indicative of the current psychophysiological state of the user into the predictive data model (e.g. Par. [0021]; Fig. 2: step 206);
detect, based on an output of the predictive data model, a pattern related to the feature set among the different patterns and a probability of the user transitioning from the awake state to the sleep state at a date and time, wherein the probability of the user transitioning from the awake state to the sleep state at the date and the time is detected based on the detected pattern (e.g. Pars. [0026]-[0027]: features determined for each epoch to classify the sleep stages; Pars. [0041]-[0043]: the hidden Markov model predicts the sequence of sleep stages, including going from awake to the first stage; Par. [0045]: graph 306 that shows the different sleep stages predicted by the model at different times; Fig. 3: graph 306).
However, Chan fails to disclose based on the detected pattern and detected probability, select an intervention action predicted, by the predictive data model, to increase the probability of the user transitioning to the sleep state at the date and time, and communicate a message indicative of the intervention action to the user.
Molina, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses systems and methods of detecting sleep stages. Molina discloses based on a pattern, selecting an intervention action predicted to increase the probability of the user transitioning to the sleep state at the date and time (e.g. Par. [0035]: sleep stage module that indicates probability of a transition from one sleep stage to another; Pars. [0044]-[0045]: determining stimuli to be provided to the patient), and communicate a message indicative of the intervention action to the user (e.g. Pars. [0044]-[0045]: auditory and visual stimuli are used to communicate with the patient; Par. [0027]: information and results communicated to the user).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan to include the selection and communication of the intervention action to the user as taught by Molina, because doing so would increase the probability of accuracy of determining sleep stages (e.g. Molina, par. [0045]).
Regarding claim 2, Chan further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the pattern by identifying, in the data, a feature set from among a plurality of feature sets and selecting a sub-model of the predictive data model using the feature set, the predictive data model including a plurality of sub-models (e.g. Par. [0024]: machine learning classifier used to determine sleep stage probabilities which is then input into another algorithm; Par. [0027]: multiple epochs have features calculated; Pars. [0034]-[0035]: each epoch is associated with a certain sleep stage).
However, Chan fails to specifically disclose the plurality of sub-models that indicate the probability of the user transitioning to the sleep state in response to different intervention actions, and the plurality of sub-models being associated with a particular feature set of the plurality of feature sets. Molina, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses systems and methods of detecting sleep stages. Molina discloses indicating the probability of the user transitioning to the sleep state in response to different intervention actions, and a plurality of sub-models being associated with a particular feature set of the plurality of feature sets (e.g. Pars. [0044]-[0045]: auditory and visual stimuli are used to communicate with the patient; Par. [0035]: each sleep stage has its own neuron with its own activation function to determine probability of that sleep stage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan in view of Molina to include the probability of the user transitioning to the sleep state in response to different intervention actions and the plurality of sub-models being associated with a particular feature set as taught by Molina, because doing so would increase accuracy of the prediction of probability of the sleep stage (e.g. Molina, par. [0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Chan further discloses wherein the plurality of sub-models are associated with different time frames, and each feature of the feature set has a weight associated with the probability of the user transitioning to the sleep state (e.g. Pars. [0043]-[0044]: prior probabilities and time varying matrices used to predict the sequence of sleep stages).
Regarding claim 4, Chan further discloses training the classifier using initial data (e.g. Pars. [0049]-[0050]). However, Chan fails to specifically disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to revise the predictive data model based on feedback data which is indicative of whether the user transitions to the sleep state responsive to the intervention action. Molina, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses systems and methods of detecting sleep stages. Molina discloses wherein the processing circuitry is to revise the predictive data model based on feedback data which is indicative of whether the user transitions to the sleep state responsive to the intervention action (e.g. Pars. [0039]-[0040]: the sleep stage module is configured to refine the sleep stage estimation and probability based on the reassessment stimuli).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan in view of Molina to include refining the model based on feedback as taught by Molina, because doing so would allow increased accuracy in determining the sleep stages and the transition between sleep stages.
Regarding claim 5, Chan fails to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive the feedback data in real time, and in response to the feedback data and the revised predictive data model, to communicate another message indicative of a revised intervention action. Molina, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses systems and methods of detecting sleep stages. Molina discloses wherein the processing circuitry is to receive the feedback data in real time, and in response to the feedback data and the revised predictive data model, to communicate another message indicative of a revised intervention action (e.g. Pars. [0039]-[0040]: the sleep stage module is configured to refine the sleep stage estimation and probability based on the reassessment stimuli, and the updated stimuli is provided to the user).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan in view of Molina to include refining the model based on feedback and communicating an updated message as taught by Molina, because doing so would allow increased accuracy in determining the sleep stages and the transition between sleep stages.
Regarding claim 6, Chan fails to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive the feedback data, and in response to the received feedback data: identify features from the feedback data; identify whether the user exhibits a response to the intervention action that is anticipated by the predictive data model to increase the probability based on the identified features; and in response to an unexpected response, revise the predictive data model for the user and as associated with the detected pattern. Molina, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses systems and methods of detecting sleep stages. Molina discloses wherein the processing circuitry is to receive the feedback data, and in response to the received feedback data: identify features from the feedback data, identify whether the user exhibits a response to the intervention action that is anticipated by the predictive data model to increase the probability based on the identified features, and in response to an unexpected response, revise the predictive data model for the user and as associated with the detected pattern (e.g. Pars. [0039]-[0040]: the sleep stage module is configured to refine the sleep stage estimation and probability based on the reassessment stimuli, and the updated stimuli is provided to the user).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan in view of Molina to include refining the model based on feedback as taught by Molina, because doing so would allow increased accuracy in determining the sleep stages and the transition between sleep stages.
Regarding claim 7, Chan fails to disclose wherein the intervention action is part of a sleep intervention strategy that includes a plurality of intervention actions, the plurality of intervention actions being selected from a group consisting of: a behavioral intervention action, a cognitive intervention action, a neuromodulation action, an environmental change, a sensory action, and combinations thereof. Molina, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses systems and methods of detecting sleep stages. Molina discloses wherein the intervention action consists of a sensory action (e.g. Par. [0043]: visual and auditory stimulus are types of stimuli presented).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan in view of Molina to include the sensory intervention action as taught by Molina to determine the most effective stimuli to provide.
Regarding claim 8, Chan fails to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to communicate the message indicative of the sleep intervention strategy and which includes an order of the plurality of intervention actions. Molina, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses systems and methods of detecting sleep stages. Molina discloses wherein the processing circuitry is to communicate the message indicative of the sleep intervention strategy and which includes an order of the plurality of intervention actions (e.g. Par. [0043]: the first stimuli provided is visual, then auditory).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan in view of Molina to include the order of intervention actions as taught by Molina to determine the most effective stimuli to provide.
Regarding claim 9, Chan fails to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to communicate a plurality of messages, including the message, that are indicative of the plurality of intervention actions, each of the plurality of messages being selected from a group consisting of: a message displayed to the user that instructs the user to take a respective intervention action, and a message to another device to automatically cause a respective intervention action to occur at a particular time in accordance with the sleep intervention strategy. Molina, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses systems and methods of detecting sleep stages. Molina discloses wherein the processing circuitry is to communicate a plurality of messages, including the message, that are indicative of the plurality of intervention actions, each of the plurality of messages being a message displayed to the user that instructs the user to take a respective intervention action (e.g. Par. [0043]: a visual stimuli is provided).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan in view of Molina to include the message being displayed to the user as taught by Molina because doing so would allow measurement of the user’s reaction.
Regarding claim 11, Chan further discloses wherein the data obtained by the input circuitry is selected from a group consisting of: schedule or calendar data, stress level, general mood, dietary data, health information, exercise data, sleep data, and a combination thereof (e.g. Par. [0016], [0018]: health information of the user is measured).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0190086 – APPLICANT CITED ON 09/19/2022 IDS), hereinafter Chan, further in view of Molina et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0368755 – APPLICANT CITED ON 09/19/2022 IDS), hereinafter Molina, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0121248, of record), hereinafter Wright.
Regarding claim 10, Chan further discloses input circuitry to receive the data indicative of the current psychophysiological state of the user, the input circuitry including a wearable physiological sensor to sense a physiological signal from the user (e.g. Par. [0016]). However, Chan fails to specifically disclose another sensor to sense an atmospheric measurement. Wright, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards determining sleep states of the user. Wright discloses an additional sensor to sense an atmospheric measurement (e.g. Par. [0065]: environmental sensors to measure data relating to temperature).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chan in view of Molina to include the environmental sensor as taught by Wright to determine environmental factors that disturb sleep.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kinnunen et al. (US 2022/0375590) is directed towards a sleep staging algorithm.
Kahn et al. (US 11,766,213) is directed towards sleep monitoring.
Aoyama et al. (US 2015/0029030) is directed towards sleep state management.
Rubin et al. (US 2007/0249952) is directed towards sleep monitoring.
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 SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights