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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 now calls for the system to “operate a decision engine comprising a bed presence classifier”, then later “providing, by the decision engine, the… signals as input to a bed presence classifier” and “receiving, by the decision engine, from the bed presence classifier, output”. It is unclear if the classifier that is part of the decision engine is the same classifier that receives signals as input and provides output – if the second classifier is the same classifier, it should be referred to a “the” bed presence classifier. However, as the classifier is part of the decision engine itself, it is unclear how or why the decision engine is sending signals to the classifier when the classifier is already part of the decision engine, or, similarly, how the engine can receive an output from itself. Clarification is required.
Further, the actual steps of the method are unclear, as the step of “operate a decision engine” appears to require input of the signals in order to operate the classifier, but the step of inputting the signals then takes place subsequent to the step of operating the decision engine/classifier. Further, the step of input signals to the classifier is followed only by receiving an output from the classifier – is there a missing step of operating the classifier or is this implied by inputting data to it? Further, is the receipt of an output an additional indication, or is this the indication that would be generated by operating the decision engine? Clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites “the features”; it is unclear if these refer to the “temperature features” and/or “pressure features” as defined in claim 1 or to some other features. Clarification 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the terms of the claim are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.
Steps “receiving… temperature signal” and “receiving… pressure signals” recite receiving data to generate input data. The claim does not put any limits on how the data is received, but the background supports the plain meaning of “receiving” as encompassing receiving the data over a network.
The next step “operate a decision engine comprising a bed presence classifier trained using features extracted from pre-classified signals” recites use of an ANN which was trained using a selected algorithm. The training algorithm is a logistic regression algorithm. When given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the background, algorithms are mathematical calculations. The plain meaning of these terms are optimization algorithms, which compute neural network parameters using a series of mathematical calculations. These steps are all recited as being performed by a computer. The recited computer is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic computer performing generic computer functions.
The steps of “providing signals… as an input” and “receiving… output of the bed presence indication” recites detecting one or more features in a data set using the trained ANN. The claim does not provide any details about how the trained ANN operates or how the detection is made, and the plain meaning of identifying an indication encompasses mental observations or evaluations, e.g., a computer programmer’s mental identification of a correlation in a data set.
Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 is a method that receives data at a computer, detects and analyzes features in a data set using the trained ANN, and outputs data from the trained ANN. The claimed identifying steps encompass mental choices or evaluations, and the claimed use of a pattern recognition or correlation algorithm encompasses performing mathematical calculations.
Step 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites at least one step or act, including receiving data. Thus, the claim is to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. As discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of steps of receiving data and identifying an indication is that those steps fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The steps of providing data as input to and receiving an output from a classifier recites detecting one or more features in a data set using the trained ANN. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the “detecting” encompasses mental observations or evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind. For example, the claimed detecting of anomalies in a data set encompasses observing data in a data set and performing an evaluation by comparing data to a known value.
The step of receiving as output implies using the trained ANN to generate data. This step encompasses performing evaluation, judgment, and opinion to make a determination about detected features in the data. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, the analyzing encompasses mental processes practically performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
The step of “identify a bed presence indication based on… signals” requires specific mathematical calculations to perform the training of the ANN and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. “Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, “in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the steps of receiving data and identifying an indication fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas, and the steps of inputting signals, identifying an indication with a classifier, and outputting the indication fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. These limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving… temperature signals,” “receiving… pressure signals,” “operate a decision engine,” “providing… signals as input, “receiving… output,” where these steps are performed by a computer, and “a bed” with “at least one temperature sensor” and “at least one motion sensor”. The limitations of receiving data via the sensors and outputting an indication are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Further, these limitations are recited as being performed by a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality, where the computer is used as a tool to perform the generic computer function of receiving data. See MPEP 2106.05(f), or to perform an abstract idea, as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitations reciting “operate a decision engine” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to 8 perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The judicial exception of “identify a bed presence indication” is performed using the trained “bed presence classifier.” The trained classifier is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained classifier functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “identify a bed presence indication” and do not include any details about how the “identify[ing]” is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation also merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. Although the additional element “operate a decision engine comprising a bed presence classifier” limits the identified judicial exceptions “identify a bed presence indication” this type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: YES).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are additional elements. The additional element of “operate a decision engine comprising a bed presence classifier” is at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additional elements of the bed with at least one temperature sensor and at least one pressure sensor for “receiving… signals” were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two, because they were determined to be insignificant limitations as necessary data gathering and outputting. However, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A, Prong Two should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitations of “receiving… temperature signals” and “receiving… pressure signals” are recited at a high level of generality. These elements amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network and are well understood, routine, conventional activity involving well-understood, routine, and conventional sensors recited at a high level of generality. See MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II.
As discussed in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the recitation of a computer to perform the limitations amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
As such, considered individually and as a whole the claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims also fail to provide anything significantly more, as claims 2, 4, 7, 9-13, 16 are directed to aspects of the abstract idea itself; claims 3, 5 are directed to additional mathematical calculations; claims 6, 8, 17, are directed to output of the result, an insignificant post-solution activity; claims 14, 15, 18-20 are directed to data gathering.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 112, the Examiner notes that though previous issues have been resolved, the amendments to the claims have also raised new issues.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Examiner notes that the amendments to recite a decision engine with classifier have rendered the claims analogous to the Office’s 101 example 47, claim 2, also directed to using a trained neural network to analyze data.
Regarding the art rejections, no art has been applied against the claims at this time; however, as the claims are currently indefinite in scope, Applicant’s remarks will be revisited if still applicable when the scope of the claims has been resolved.
Conclusion
No art has been applied against the claims at this time; however, as the claims are all rejected under 112 and 101 above they are not presently allowable and the question of prior art will be revisited upon resolution of the above scope issues.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2019/0201269 to Sayadi, which also discloses a bed system with pressure and body temperature sensors configured to determine a user’s presence from pressure signals using a decision engine with a presence classifier trained using classified pressure features
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 KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAREN E TOTH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791