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 .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 103 rejections, the amendments and related arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, applicant’s arguments are focused solely on Lyons, which is no longer being used in the current rejection; see new 103 rejection below.
Based on the new 112a written description and enablement rejections, which are not necessarily based on the amendments, the current action is Non-Final, as these are new grounds of rejections that are based on the previous claim limitations, i.e. not necessitated by the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
[Claims 1 and 6] The current claims require a mattress including an inclinometer positioned at or near the sleep surface and a processor programmed to adjust the sleep surface based upon detecting an at least one characteristic of the individual, wherein the at least one characteristic of the individual comprises a respiratory characteristic of the individual, and wherein the processor processes signals from the inclinometer to determine the respiratory characteristic of the individual that disrupts the individual's sleep.
First and foremost, as described below in the 112b rejection, there is confusion related to an inclinometer that detects “a respiratory characteristic of the individual” and a processor that determines “the respiratory characteristic of the individual that disrupts sleep of the individual”. As explained below, these are interpreted as two separate requirements, 1. A sensor/inclinometer that detects a respiratory characteristic (i.e. any/all respiratory characteristics) and 2. A processor that uses this sensed/detected respiratory characteristic to determine a separate condition/parameter that disrupts sleep. The specification fails to provide support for “wherein the processor processes signals from the inclinometer to determine the respiratory characteristic of the individual that disrupts the individual's sleep”, specifically with information obtained solely from an inclinometer included in a mattress, i.e. in or on the mattress surface.
The only support from the specification is in Pars 0057-58, which state “In one embodiment, the breathing indicative of a condition that adversely affects restful sleep is snoring, which may be detected with a sensor 40 that comprises an inclinometer. Upon detecting snoring by the sleeping individual, the system may adjust a state of the sleep surface 24 of the mattress 20 to reduce the snoring by the sleeping individual (reference 230).” and “In another embodiment, the breathing that is indicative of a condition that adversely affects restful sleep is a variation, or change, in respiratory rate (e.g., an inconsistent respiratory rate, etc.), which may be detected with a sensor that comprises an inclinometer.” This is no way provides any explanation as to: 1. HOW snoring and/or respiratory rate is first detected by an inclinometer included in/on a mattress or 2. HOW snoring and/or respiratory rate is determined by the processor using data detected from an inclinometer. It is noted that an inclinometer is a device used to measure the angle of an object's slope, elevation, or tilt relative to gravity. There is no discussion related to how such a sensor included in/on a mattress, i.e. not body-worn or implanted in a user, can detect or determine snoring or respiratory rate. This is clearly a computer implemented function, based on the fact that the processor is specifically programmed to make this determination. MPEP 2161.01 states “original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV.”
Additionally, it is emphasized that the claims are much broader than just snoring or respiratory rate, and relate to any respiratory characteristic (or any respiratory characteristic that disrupts sleep). However, applicant’s specification only provides 2 examples, which is not a sufficient description of a representative number of species that represents the entire genus; MPEP 2163. Specifically, the two examples of snoring and respiratory rate, i.e. disclosed species, do not sufficiently cover any/all respiratory characteristics, i.e. claimed genus.
MPEP 2163.03… An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement."Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
It appears that the current claims are deficient based on both (1) and (2), as the claims do not detail/explain how the function/result is performed/achieved and are also impermissibly broad, as they are much broader than what is disclosed. See additional discussion below, related to the enablement rejection.
[Claim 16] This claims fails the written description requirement for the same/similar reasons, discussed above in relation to claims 1 and 6. The only difference is that this claim does not specifically recite “the respiratory characteristic of the individual that disrupts sleep of the individual” or a processor, but the issues remain the same. The claims encompass an inclinometer in/on a mattress, i.e. not body-worn or implanted within a patient, and adjusting the mattress based on a respiratory characteristic sensed/detected by the inclinometer. Therefore, the breadth of the claim includes any/all respiratory characteristics, which is not supported, as only two examples are given, i.e. snoring and respiratory rate. Furthermore, the specification never discusses/details HOW this respiratory characteristic is detected by an inclinometer positioned in/on a mattress.
As will be discussed below, in relation to claim 17, the breadth of this claim, in terms of a single sensor, specifically a single inclinometer, that performs both the monitoring step and the detecting step, is not supported.
[Claim 17] This claim recites “wherein the respiratory characteristic of the sleeping individual comprises at least one of breathing of the sleeping individual or a heart rate of the sleeping individual, and wherein monitoring the sleeping individual comprises monitoring at least one of movement of at least one body part of the sleeping individual, a temperature of at least one body part of the sleeping individual or a position of a cover relative to a position of the sleeping individual”. This claim is dependent on claim 16 which requires “monitoring the sleeping individual on a sleep surface of the mattress using at least one sensor positioned at or near the sleep surface; detecting at least one characteristic of the sleeping individual comprising respiratory characteristic of the sleeping individual by the at least one sensor, wherein the at least one sensor comprises an inclinometer”. Therefore, it’s clear from claim 16, that the steps of monitoring the sleeping individual and detecting a respiratory characteristic is (or at least can be) accomplished by the same “at least one sensor”, i.e. a single sensor, which is/includes an inclinometer. Therefore, the claims encompass an interpretation where a single inclinometer performs both the monitoring step and the detection step. However, claim 17 makes it clear that the breadth of these monitoring and detecting steps require different parameters to be monitored versus detected. There is no support in the specification that an inclinometer is responsible for monitoring all of these parameters. In fact, some are simply impossible, e.g. an inclinometer cannot measure temperature. Again, the breadth/scope of the claim encompasses a single sensor, i.e. inclinometer, that monitors and detects all of the claimed parameters, which is not supported.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-21 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
[Claims 1, 6 and 16] See discussion above, related to the 112a written description rejection, specifically the breadth of the claims includes an inclinometer included in/on a mattress that detects a respiratory characteristic (of a person lying in the bed) and a processor that uses this sensed/detected respiratory characteristic to determine a respiratory characteristic that disrupts sleep. First and foremost, the breadth of this claim includes any/all respiratory characteristics, but the specification only mentions snoring and respiratory rate. So even if the specification provided sufficient enablement for snoring and respiratory rate (which it doesn’t, as described below), the claims are much broader than what is discussed in the specification, and would fail the enablement requirement based on this breadth alone.
Second, while snoring and respiratory rate are mentioned as examples of a respiratory condition that can disrupt sleep, there is NO discussion related to HOW an inclinometer located in or on a mattress functions/operates to detect snoring and respiratory rate and/or HOW a processor is programmed to take this sensed data (from an inclinometer in/on a mattress) to determine snoring or respiratory rate. Stated differently, there is no direction or working examples provided by the inventor as to how the claimed function is performed or the claimed result is achieved. Almost all of the prior art relates to using a body-worn inclinometers to detect/determine respiratory conditions, but there are almost no prior art references that use an inclinometer positioned in or on a mattress that determine a respiratory characteristic of the user, and none that specifically determine a respiratory rate or snoring using this data. Again, it is emphasized that an inclinometer is a device used to measure the angle of an object's slope, elevation, or tilt relative to gravity. It is not readily apparent to a POSITA without ample explanation/details HOW such a sensor located in/on a mattress is able to detect snoring or respiratory rate of a user. For example, how does the angle/tilt of a person change when snoring or during respiration, in general, and how is this data then used to determine the snoring or respiration rate of a user? While the examiner understands that respiration and/or snoring causes minute vibrations/movements that can be detected by a motion sensor, e.g. an accelerometer or gyroscope, it’s unclear how an inclinometer within or on a mattress is suitable for such a detection, especially with no guidance/examples from the specification. For example, how can a change in title/angle from snoring be distinguished from any other title/angle adjustments, e.g. normal movement during sleep or normal breathing? Again, the specification and prior art, as a whole, provide little to no discussion/details as to HOW an inclinometer in/on a mattress can be used in the claimed manner or how a processor can be programmed to make the claimed determination.
[Claims 16 and 17] As discussed above, in relation to the 112a written description rejection, the breadth/scope of this claim includes an interpretation where a single sensor, specifically an inclinometer, performs both the monitoring and detecting steps. Claim 17 makes it clear that these monitoring and detecting steps encompass measuring/monitoring/detecting numerous parameters including breathing, heart rate, movement, temperature and/or position of a cover. The scope of this claim is not enabled, as an inclinometer is not physically capable of monitoring all of these parameters, e.g. heart rate, temperature and position of a cover. There is no discussion, details or explanation as to how an inclinometer can monitor/detect these parameters, as it is seemingly impossible.
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 1, 3, 5-8, 10-15 and 17 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.
[Claims 1 and 6] The limitations “wherein the processor processes signals from the inclinometer to determine the respiratory characteristic of the individual that disrupts the individual's sleep” and “wherein the processor is programmed to process signals from the inclinometer to determine the respiratory characteristic of the individual that disrupts sleep of the individual” are indefinite.
Specifically, these limitations refer to “the” respiratory characteristic of the individual, which has been previously recited in the claims as just a “a respiratory characteristic of the individual”, but has never been previously recited as a respiratory characteristic “that disrupts sleep of the individual”. Therefore, it’s unclear if the claimed “the respiratory characteristic of the individual that disrupts sleep of the individual” is a different respiratory characteristic than the previously cited respiratory characteristic, i.e. one that is specifically related to disruption of sleep, or if this is the same respiratory characteristic. By using the term “the”, it seems that it’s applicant’s intention that these are the same respiratory characteristic, but the rest of the claim language doesn’t seem support this interpretation. The rest of the claim language seems to support the interpretation of a sensor/inclinometer detecting a respiratory characteristic which is then used by the processor to determine a different respiratory parameter, i.e. one that disrupts sleep. Therefore, the claim language is indefinite/unclear.
For examination purposes, these are considered two different parameters, the first is a respiratory characteristic detected by a sensor/inclinometer, the second is a respiratory condition/parameter that disrupts sleep specifically determined by the processor using the sensed/detected respiratory characteristic from the sensor/inclinometer.
[Claim 17] As discussed above, in relation to the 112a rejections, claim 16 (which claim 17 depends) requires that the same “at least one sensor” is used for both the monitoring step and the detecting step, where the detecting step requires detection of a respiratory characteristic. This becomes problematic in claim 17 when the claims require different respiratory characteristics to be detected (breathing and heart rate) as compared to various parameters that are monitored (movement, temperature and position of a cover). It’s unclear if/how the same at least one sensor can possibly function as claimed. Again, claim 16 makes it clear that the same sensor(s) do both the monitoring and detecting, but claim 17 requires monitoring and detecting of vastly different parameters/conditions, so it’s unclear how this is possible. Furthermore, claim 17 defines heart rate as a respiratory characteristic, which it is unclear how to interpret this as heart rate is simply not a respiratory characteristic, it’s a cardiac/heart characteristic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 5, 10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0405526 to Yu in view of US 2022/0167875 to Cathelain et al. and further in view of US 2021/0244194 to Adams.
[Claim 1] Yu discloses a smart bed (Abstract discloses a smart mattress), comprising: a mattress (Fig. 8, mattress 10) including: a sleep surface (Fig. 8, body portion 12 of mattress 10); at least one sensor positioned at or near the sleep surface (Fig. 11 depicts components of mattress 10 including at least a microphone 22 and pressure sensor unit 14), the at least one sensor comprising a sensor that detects at least one characteristic of an individual on the sleep surface indicative of a condition that adversely affects restful sleep by the individual (para. 14: “the air mattress 10 including a microphone 22 measuring noise around the air mattress 10 and a snoring determination unit 23 determining whether the user is snoring”; para. 23: “a snoring checking step S920 of when the noise is detected in the noise detecting step S910, checking whether the average change amount of the pressure change amount calculated during the preset time range T4 from the noise detection point T3 is within the preset range D to check whether the user is snoring, wherein it may be recognized that the user is snoring when the average change amount of the pressure change is within the preset range D”, i.e., both the microphone and pressure sensor are used to determine snoring); an adjustor that adjusts a state of the sleep surface (Fig. 11, air pump 15); and a processor in communication with the at least one sensor and the adjustor (Fig. 11, mattress controller 13), the processor programmed to: process signals from the at least one sensor to detect the at least one characteristic of the individual on the sleep surface indicative of the condition that adversely affects restful sleep by the individual (snoring determination unit 23, which is interpreted to be a computer program of the mattress controller); and upon detecting the at least one characteristic of the individual, cause the adjustor to adjust the state of the sleep surface in a manner that alters the at least one characteristic of the individual (para. 24: “Furthermore, the method may further include: a snoring stopping step S930 of when the snoring determination unit 23 determines that the user is snoring, repeating air inflow and air discharge of the air pockets 110 or the air cell 72 to apply vibration to the user due to repeated pressure adjustment, thereby allowing the user to transition from the deep sleep (NREM sleep) state to the light sleep (REM sleep) state to stop snoring of the user”) and wherein the at least one characteristic of the individual comprises a respiratory characteristic of the individual (snoring is interpreted/considered a respiratory characteristic, as it relates to breathing/airflow).
Yu fails to explicitly disclose a mattress including an inclinometer positioned at or near the sleep surface of the mattress and wherein the processor processes signals from the inclinometer to detect respiration that disrupts the individual’s sleep.
Cathelain discloses a similar “smart” mattress that monitors a user’s health metrics and quality of sleep. Specifically, Cathelain discloses a mattress (105) including a sensor (210) for measuring respiratory movement of the user to ultimately determine a respiratory characteristic that disrupts sleep, e.g. apnea or respiratory frequency/rate (at least Pars 0054-55, 0089-90, 0162-0165); this sensor (210) is disclosed as an inclinometer (Pars 0105-110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the modify Yu to include the inclinometer within the mattress, as taught by Cathelain, as well as a processor programmed to collect the detected data from this inclinometer to determine a respiratory characteristic that disrupts sleep, e.g. respiratory rate or apnea, as also taught by Cathelain, as this is a known sensor and controller/feedback in a similar smart bed system that monitors a user’s health. Specifically, while Yu is mostly concerned with snoring, and fails to explicitly mention respiratory rate or apnea, the reference makes it clear that a user’s overall sleep quality is monitored/analyzed, e.g. sleep quality analyzing unit (55, Fig. 12; at least Pars 0160-0164). A POSITA would readily recognize/appreciate that respiratory rate and/or apneic events are metrics/parameters that contributes to sleep quality, and would therefore be motivated to include sensors and controllers that measure/monitor these known sleep-quality parameters in order to monitor/assess a person’s overall sleep quality, as taught by Yu.
Yu and Cathelain fail to explicitly disclose a receptacle extending within a body of the mattress, the adjustor partially positioned within the receptacle.
Furthermore, Adams teaches a mattress having an interchangeable pump change cartridge wherein the pump cartridge is removable from the pump cartridge receptacle to permit the blower to be repaired or replaced without having to discard the mattress (Abstract; Fig. 2 depicts receptacle 12 within mattress which receives pump cartridge 14; para. 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu and Cathelain to include a receptacle extending within a body of the mattress, the adjustor partially positioned within the receptacle. Making this modification would be useful for repairing or replacing the pump without damaging or discarding the mattress, as taught by Adams.
[Claim 5] Yu discloses the adjustor comprises air bladders that are inflatable independently from one another (Fig. 1, air pockets 110; para. 14: “an initial pressure adjusting step S200 of individually adjusting pressure of an air pocket 110 of the air mattress 10”) and a pump in communication with interiors of the air bladders (Fig. 11, air pump 15); and the processor is programmed to cause the pump in communication with the interiors of the air bladders to adjust a pressure in at least one air bladder of the air bladders to affect a change in the subject's respiration (para. 24: “Furthermore, the method may further include: a snoring stopping step S930 of when the snoring determination unit 23 determines that the user is snoring, repeating air inflow and air discharge of the air pockets 110 or the air cell 72 to apply vibration to the user due to repeated pressure adjustment, thereby allowing the user to transition from the deep sleep (NREM sleep) state to the light sleep (REM sleep) state to stop snoring of the user”).
[Claim 10] Yu discloses the adjustor comprises: air bladders that are inflatable independently from one another (Fig. 1, air pockets 110; para. 14: “an initial pressure adjusting step S200 of individually adjusting pressure of an air pocket 110 of the air mattress 10”); and a pressurization system that controls a pressure of each air bladder of the air bladders (Fig. 11, mattress controller 13 and air pump 15 provide claimed pressurization system).
[Claim 16] Yu discloses a method for addressing an activity by a sleeping individual indicative of a condition that adversely affects restful sleep by the sleeping individual, comprising: monitoring the sleeping individual on a sleep surface of the mattress using at least one sensor positioned at or near the sleep surface; detecting at least one characteristic of the sleeping individual by the at least one sensor; and adjusting, by an adjustor, a state of a sleep surface of a mattress in response to the characteristic to alter the characteristic of the sleeping individual comprising the respiratory characteristic of the sleeping individual (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the adjustor comprises air bladders positioned in the mattress that are inflatable from one another (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Yu fails to explicitly disclose a mattress including an inclinometer positioned at or near the sleep surface of the mattress and wherein the processor processes signals from the inclinometer to detect respiration that disrupts the individual’s sleep.
Cathelain discloses a similar “smart” mattress that monitors a user’s health metrics and quality of sleep. Specifically, Cathelain discloses a mattress (105) including a sensor (210) for measuring respiratory movement of the user to ultimately determine a respiratory characteristic that disrupts sleep, e.g. apnea or respiratory frequency/rate (at least Pars 0054-55, 0089-90, 0162-0165); this sensor (210) is disclosed as an inclinometer (Pars 0105-110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the modify Yu to include the inclinometer within the mattress, as taught by Cathelain, as well as a processor programmed to collect the detected data from this inclinometer to determine a respiratory characteristic that disrupts sleep, e.g. respiratory rate or apnea, as also taught by Cathelain, as this is a known sensor and controller/feedback in a similar smart bed system that monitors a user’s health. Specifically, while Yu is mostly concerned with snoring, and fails to explicitly mention respiratory rate or apnea, the reference makes it clear that a user’s overall sleep quality is monitored/analyzed, e.g. sleep quality analyzing unit (55, Fig. 12; at least Pars 0160-0164). A POSITA would readily recognize/appreciate that respiratory rate and/or apneic events are metrics/parameters that contributes to sleep quality, and would therefore be motivated to include sensors and controllers that measure/monitor these known sleep-quality parameters in order to monitor/assess a person’s overall sleep quality, as taught by Yu.
Yu and Cathelain fail to explicitly disclose that the mattress comprises a receptacle, wherein the adjustor is positioned at least partially within the receptacles.
Adams teaches a mattress having an interchangeable pump change cartridge wherein the pump cartridge is removable from the pump cartridge receptacle to permit the blower to be repaired or replaced without having to discard the mattress (Abstract; Fig. 2 depicts receptacle 12 within mattress which receives pump cartridge 14; para. 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Yu and Cathelain to include a receptacle extending within a body of the mattress, the adjustor partially positioned within the receptacle. Making this modification would be useful for repairing or replacing the pump without damaging or discarding the mattress, as taught by Adams.
[Claims 17-18] Yu discloses monitoring the respiratory characteristic of the sleeping individual comprises breathing (snoring is interpreted/considered to be breathing), as well as monitoring the movement of at least one body part of the sleeping individual (via pressure sensors; at least Pars 0014, 0222 and 0254). Additionally or alternatively, Cathelain discloses detecting and monitoring breathing and movement (at least Pars 0097 and 0154).
[Claim 19] Yu discloses adjusting the state of the sleep surface comprises adjusting a pressure of at least a portion of the sleep surface in a manner that moves a head or a body of the sleeping individual to reduce the snoring (para. 24: “Furthermore, the method may further include: a snoring stopping step S930 of when the snoring determination unit 23 determines that the user is snoring, repeating air inflow and air discharge of the air pockets 110 or the air cell 72 to apply vibration to the user due to repeated pressure adjustment, thereby allowing the user to transition from the deep sleep (NREM sleep) state to the light sleep (REM sleep) state to stop snoring of the user”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Cathelain and Adams, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2006/0021240 to Horgan.
[Claim 3] Modified Yu does not teach the inclinometer is positioned at a location on the sleep surface that receives a chest and/or a back of the individual.
Horgan, however, teaches an electronic inclinometer (Abstract) wherein an inclinometer is attached to the region of the patient’s bed which receives the patient’s upper body (Fig. 1, inclinometer 20 attached to bed; para. 13: “An inclinometer 20 is attached [to the bed] in the region of the patient's upper body”). The apparatus uses an inclinometer that is attached in the region of the patient's upper body to measure the physical orientation of the patient's upper body, which is then transmitted to a display. In one embodiment, the display can be set to display a plurality of alarm conditions (Abstract) in the case of an unfavorable patient upper body position (para. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain and Adams such that the inclinometer is positioned at a location on the sleep surface that receives a chest and/or a back of the individual. Making this modification would be useful for ascertaining an unfavorable patient upper body position and transmitting an alert, as taught by Horgan.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yu, Cathelain and Adams, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 2014/0223665 to Chapin.
[Claim 6] See discussion above in relation to claim 1, the combination of Yu, Cathelain and Adams fails to disclose the processor is programmed to cause the pump to repeatedly adjust a pressure in at least one air bladder of the air bladders to generate movement in a wave-like manner in the mattress; a receptacle extending within a body of the mattress, the adjustor partially positioned within the receptacle.
Chapin, however, teaches an air mattress apparatus includes an air mattress which comprised of an array of air bladder cells that are individually inflatable to quiescent pressure levels which provide comfortable support for the body of a human, and a pressure-pulse generator controlled by a wave sequence generator for introducing into ordered patterns of air bladder cells a wave-like time sequence of air pressure pulses which vary quiescent pressure levels in the cells, the pressure wave resulting in a traveling wave of support force variation which travels over the surfaces of the pulsed air bladder cells, thus inhibiting formation of bedsores. The wave pattern may optionally simulate water waves and/or rocking motions of a boat to produce relaxing effects (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain and Adams, such that the processor is programmed to cause the pump to repeatedly adjust a pressure in at least one air bladder of the air bladders to generate movement in a wave-like manner in the mattress. Making this modification would be useful for inhibiting formation of bedsores and producing relaxing effects, as taught by Chapin.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Cathelain, Adams and Chapin, as applied to claim 6, and further in view of US 2011/0224510 to Oakhill.
[Claims 7-8] Modified Yu does not teach the sensor is positioned at a location on the sleep surface that receives legs and/or feet presence of the individual, wherein the processor receives signals from the at least one sensor to detect a leg and/or foot movement indicative of restless leg syndrome; wherein detecting the at least one component of the activity by the sleeping individual comprising detecting a leg and/or foot movement indicative of restless leg syndrome.
Oakhill, however, teaches a system for bedding with sleep diagnostics (Abstract) wherein sensors to detect motion may be disposed near the foot of the bed for detecting leg motion indicative of restless leg syndrome (para. 39, last sentence). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain, Adams and Chapin such that the sensor is positioned at a location on the sleep surface that receives legs and/or feet presence of the individual, wherein the processor receives signals from the at least one sensor to detect a leg and/or foot movement indicative of restless leg syndrome; wherein detecting the at least one component of the activity by the sleeping individual comprising detecting a leg and/or foot movement indicative of restless leg syndrome. Making this modification would be useful for detecting restless leg syndrome, as taught by Oakhill.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Cathelain and Adams, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 10,905,249 to Saghiri.
[Claims 11 and 13-14] Modified Yu does not disclose the adjustor comprises a temperature control system, wherein the temperature control system includes at least one heating element and at least one cooling effect.
Saghiri, however, teaches a multifunctional smart bed (Abstract) wherein smart bed 100 comprises one or more environment adjusters 190, which are specific examples of actuators 160. Environment adjusters 190 may be configured to adjust the temperature and/or other characteristics in the environment surrounding smart bed 100. Some examples of environment adjusters 190 include, but are not limited to heaters and fans (Col. 6-7, ll. 62-2; see also Fig. 1A-C for reference numerals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain and Adams such that the adjustor comprises a temperature control system, wherein the temperature control system includes at least one heating element and at least one cooling effect. Making this modification would be useful for adjusting the temperature in the environment surrounding the smart bed, as taught by Saghiri.
[Claim 15] Yu does not disclose the adjustor comprises an adjustable frame that carries the mattress; and the processor is programmed to cause the adjustable frame that carries the mattress to adjust an orientation of at least a portion of the mattress to change an orientation of a head and/or a body of the individual.
Saghiri, however, teaches an adjustor comprising an adjustable frame that carries the mattress (Fig. 1C, adjustable frame portions 130, 140, 150), wherein the processor is programmed to cause the adjustable frame that carries the mattress to adjust an orientation of at least a portion of the mattress to change an orientation of a head and/or a body of the individual (Col. 5-6, ll. 59-16). Furthermore, upon detection of snoring, controller 170 instructs one or more drives to change the position of one or more of head section 130, torso section 140, and leg section 150. Referring to FIG. 1C, in specific examples, controller 170 instructs first drive 161 to increase the angle of head section 130, relative to the ground, thereby raising the sleeper's head position. The change in head position is known to stop the snoring temporarily because the breathing airways blocked by the relaxed larynx muscles get cleared by the change of position of the head. Each time the snoring is resumed the head position is moved again, at slow speed (e.g., at less than 5° per minute) to avoid waking up the sleeping person. For example, raising user's head about 20° to 30° from the horizontal plane opens the nasal airway passages and may prevent snoring (Col. 11, ll. 36-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain and Adams such that the adjustor comprises an adjustable frame that carries the mattress; and the processor is programmed to cause the adjustable frame that carries the mattress to adjust an orientation of at least a portion of the mattress to change an orientation of a head and/or a body of the individual. Making this modification would be useful for facilitating raising the sleeper's head position in order to stop the snoring temporarily, as taught by Saghiri.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Cathelain, Adams and Saghiri, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 7913332 to Barnhart.
[Claim 12] Modified Yu does not teach the temperature control system includes a ventilation system.
Barnhart, however, teaches a ventilator system for a bed that withdraws air from under the bedding covers to provide fresh airflow along a sleeper's body is disclosed. The bed ventilator system includes an air removal extraction device at one end of a single bed, or along the lower-half sides of a shared bed, between the bottom sheet and the bed covers at the mattress top surface. A conduit directs withdrawn air from the extraction device to a vacuum generating system that provides negative air pressure as a motive force to withdraw air. The system provides air flow in the natural hair follicle direction, relieving bed occupants from both temperature and bodily odor distractions (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain, Adams and Saghiri such that the temperature control system includes a ventilation system. Making this modification would be useful for providing fresh airflow along a sleeper’s body, as taught by Barnhart.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Cathelain and Adams, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Oakhill.
[Claim 20] Modified Yu does not teach wherein detecting the at least one characteristic of the sleeping individual comprises detecting a leg and/or foot movement indicative of restless leg syndrome.
Oakhill, however, teaches a system for bedding with sleep diagnostics (Abstract) wherein sensors to detect motion may be disposed near the foot of the bed for detecting leg motion indicative of restless leg syndrome (para. 39, last sentence). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain and Adams such that the sensor is positioned at a location on the sleep surface that receives legs and/or feet presence of the individual, wherein the processor receives signals from the at least one sensor to detect a leg and/or foot movement indicative of restless leg syndrome; wherein detecting the at least one component of the activity by the sleeping individual comprising detecting a leg and/or foot movement indicative of restless leg syndrome. Making this modification would be useful for detecting restless leg syndrome, as taught by Oakhill.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Cathelain, Adams and Oakhill, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of US 2019/0151190 to Burbank et al. and US 2022/0287474 to Wang.
[Claim 21] Modified Yu does not teach adjusting the state of the sleep surface comprises at least one of: causing a portion of the sleep surface to move a leg and/or foot of the sleeping individual in a manner that reduces further movement of the leg and/or foot of the sleeping individual;
Burbank, however, teaches devices and methods for treating restless leg syndrome (Abstract), wherein an air bladder under the patient’s leg causes the thigh muscles to flex as the patient's knee is lifted. Similarly, the calf is flexed as the patient's knee is lifted. The flexion of either or both of these muscles provides a counter-stimulation to restless leg syndrome (RLS) (para. 177; with reference to Figs. 26-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain, Adams and Oakhill such that adjusting the state of the sleep surface comprises: causing a portion of the sleep surface to move a leg and/or foot of the sleeping individual in a manner that reduces further movement of the leg and/or foot of the sleeping individual. Making this modification would be useful for providing a counter-stimulation to RLS, as taught by Burbank.
Yu, Cathelain, Adams, Oakhill and Burbank fail to explicitly teach adjusting a temperature of a portion of the sleep surface to reduce further movement of the leg and/or foot of the sleeping individual.
Wang, however, teaches a bed with temperature adjustments (Abstract) wherein the temperature detector 40 is arranged on the surface of the mattress 20 to directly sense the surface temperature, so as to improve the accuracy of monitoring, and facilitate the controller of the bed to adjust the heating member 30, and thus the temperature of the mattress 20 is more suitable for sleep. In order to detect the surface temperature of the mattress and make it easier for the user to sleep, all the temperature sensors 42 in one embodiment are distributed along the width direction of the mattress 20. That is, the plurality of temperature sensors 42 can be arranged relative to the back of the human body. The average number of the temperature sensors 42 is used to obtain the surface temperature of the mattress 20 to improve the accuracy. In addition, if the mattress 20 is a double bed, the temperature sensors 42 are installed corresponding to where each user lies, so as to adapt to the different temperature requirements of the user (para. 50). During the sleeping duration, the temperature detector 40 is always turned on for continuously temperature monitoring (para. 54; Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain, Adams, Oakhill and Burbank to include monitoring and adjusting the temperature of the sleep surface, as taught by Wang. Making this modification would be useful for making it easier and more comfortable for the user to sleep, as suggested by Wang (Par 0004 and 0054).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Cathelain and Adams, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2021/0183504 to Agdeppa et al..
[Claim 23] Modified Yu does not teach detecting the at least one component of the activity by the sleeping individual comprises determining whether or not at least the portion of the sleeping individual is covered by bed linens.
Agdeppa, however, teaches patient bed exit prediction utilizing motion sensors to determine when a patient is removing covers from the patient's bed. An algorithm generated from training data obtained in controlled experiments is used to analyze the sensor information to determine when patient movements indicate that a blanket or covers are being removed by a patient in a bed. When such patient movements are detected, an alert can be issued to caregivers through a call system so that the caregiver is notified that a patient at risk for falling needs assistance in getting out of bed (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain and Adams to include detecting the at least one component of the activity by the sleeping individual comprises determining whether or not at least the portion of the sleeping individual is covered by bed linens. Making this modification would be useful so that an alert can be issued to caregivers through a call system so that the caregiver is notified that a patient at risk for falling needs assistance in getting out of bed, as taught by Agdeppa.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu, Cathelain and Adams, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2022/0287474 to Wang.
[Claim 24] Modified Yu fails to explicitly teach adjusting a temperature of at least a portion of the sleep surface on which the portion of the sleeping individual lies.
Wang, however, teaches a bed with temperature adjustments (Abstract) wherein the temperature detector 40 is arranged on the surface of the mattress 20 to directly sense the surface temperature, so as to improve the accuracy of monitoring, and facilitate the controller of the bed to adjust the heating member 30, and thus the temperature of the mattress 20 is more suitable for sleep. In order to detect the surface temperature of the mattress and make it easier for the user to sleep, all the temperature sensors 42 in one embodiment are distributed along the width direction of the mattress 20. That is, the plurality of temperature sensors 42 can be arranged relative to the back of the human body. The average number of the temperature sensors 42 is used to obtain the surface temperature of the mattress 20 to improve the accuracy. In addition, if the mattress 20 is a double bed, the temperature sensors 42 are installed corresponding to where each user lies, so as to adapt to the different temperature requirements of the user (para. 50). During the sleeping duration, the temperature detector 40 is always turned on for continuously temperature monitoring (para. 54; Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the invention of Yu, Cathelain and Adams to include monitoring and adjusting the temperature of the sleep surface, as taught by Wang. Making this modification would be useful for making it easier and more comfortable for the user to sleep, as suggested by Wang (Par 0004 and 0054).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0115059 to Grutta et al. discloses an inclinometer sensor (40T) in/on a mattress to monitor respiration (Par 0028)
US 2022/0395181 to Reuveny et al discloses various respiratory parameters (314) that are indicative of sleep quality, including snoring and apnea (Par 0071)
US 2020/0205580 to Sayadi et al. disclose a similar smart bed that monitors a user’s health and adjusts the sleep surface that includes identifying sleep factors that negatively impact sleep including snoring and apnea (Par 0189)
US 2019/0030334 to Lerman et al discloses a respiration rate sensor that includes an inclinometer (Par 0034)
US 2016/0015314 to Dusanter et al disclose a similar smart bed that monitors a user’s health that specifically monitors parameters that effect a user’s sleep quality including snoring and apnea (Pars 0189)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights