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
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 10, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 9, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sayadi et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0337470 – previously cited) in view of Moturu et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0189641).
It is noted that the amendment to claim 1 includes language similar to originally claimed dependent claims 6 and 7. However, the new amendment differs by specifying that the remedial action is communicated to the user at least in part in the form of a visual remedial indicator generated in the form of a meter image. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a health meter… showing the user where each one of the above health elements is in reference to an ideal condition) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayadi et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0337470 – previously cited) in view of Moturu et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0189641).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Sayadi discloses a system and method comprising: an electronic interface configured to receive data associated with a physical activity of a user (e.g. ¶ 55, 67); a memory storing machine-readable instructions; and a control system including one or more processors configured to execute the machine-readable instructions to: receive electronically data associated with physical or psychological factors of the user (e.g. ¶ 55; biometric signals such as heart rate, respiration, and/or movement of the user), the data being collected from (a) a plurality of smart home devices, (b) a plurality of mobile devices, or (c) both (e.g. ¶ 66), the physical or psychological factors being based on at least one physical activity of the user (e.g. ¶ 55; movement of the user); identify, based on the data, an effect on sleep quality of the user (e.g. ¶ 51 – 52, 55); determine, based on the effect, a remedial action for improving sleep quality of the user (e.g. ¶ 40); cause the remedial action to be communicated in electronic form to the user in real-time during the physical activity (e.g. ¶ 36, 39, 67); automatically implement, without input from the user, at least a part of the remedial action via one or more of the plurality of smart home devices and the plurality of mobile devices (e.g. ¶ 6 and 213); and increase at least one of a deep-sleep state and sleep duration based on the remedial action (e.g. ¶ 40). Sayadi fails to teach that the remedial action is communicated to the user at least in part in the form of a visual remedial indicator generated in the form of a meter image that is displayed on a screen of a mobile device.
Moturu teaches it is known to use a system and method for managing sleep quality by managing physiological patterns (e.g. ABSTRACT) that includes a display on a mobile device (e.g. Fig. 2) that shows that the remedial action is communicated to the user at least in part in the form of a visual remedial indicator generated in the form of a meter image that is displayed on a screen of a mobile device (e.g. ¶ 26 and Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the display as taught by Sayadi with the visual remedial indicator as claimed as taught by Moturu, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of allowing the user to quickly understand what actions needed to be taken to improve sleep.
Regarding claim 2, Sayadi discloses receiving the data wirelessly, the plurality of smart home devices and the plurality of mobile devices being communicatively coupled to an electronic device of the user (e.g. Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Sayadi discloses the plurality of smart home devices include at least one of a smart thermostat, a smart outlet, and a smart TV (e.g. Fig. 3 and ¶ 66, 69 – 70).
Regarding claim 4, Sayadi discloses the electronic device of the user includes at least one of a mobile phone and a smart watch wearable (e.g. Fig. 3; 310; and ¶ 43).
Regarding claim 5, Sayadi discloses the data includes at least one of sleep routine data, screen time data, physical exercise data, diet data, wellness data, outdoor time data, and stress data (e.g. ¶ 40).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sayadi discloses representing the remedial action in the form of a visual remedial indicator (e.g. ¶ 191; the visual feedback would necessarily read on the meter image displayed on a screen of a mobile device since a mobile device was mentioned in ¶ 43).
Regarding claim 14, modified Sayadi in view of Moturu discloses the sleep quality includes physical aches caused by sleeping posture (e.g. Sayadi ¶ 33; The sleeper position variable can have a value for orientation (e.g. on back, on side) and body pose (e.g. in flexion or extension in at hips, knees, and shoulders). By improving the orientation and pose (i.e. posture), Sayadi would necessarily reduce physical aches associated with those postures).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sayadi et al. in view of Moturu et al., and further in view of Wisbey et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0051184 – previously cited).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Sayadi in view of Moturu discloses the claimed invention as previously discussed, but fails to teach suggesting to the user an increase or decrease of a specific physical activity to implement the remedial action and that the remedial action is a push notification integrated in an operating software application.
Wisbey teaches it is known to suggest to a user to increase or decrease specific physical activities (e.g. ¶ 100) and that the actions may be push notifications (e.g. ¶ 108). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Sayadi in view of Moturu with the notification suggesting to exercise as taught by Wisbey since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing the user information to effectively increase sleep quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Levendowski et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0333558) recites automatically adjusting remedial action in order to improve sleep quality (e.g. ¶ 138).
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 JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights