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 in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the claim is directed to a particular machine []. This argument is fully considered but is not convincing. The claims as provided are directed towards limitations that could be performed in mind and therefore an abstract idea is involved. The additional limitations of segmenting data as recited could be performed in mind, using a pen and paper. In arguendo the segmenting limitations are further considered to be mere data processing and are mere extra solution activity. The additional limitations directed to the sensors, bed, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. Such limitations are further well-understood, routine and conventional. See full detailed rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 05/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following:
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220071511 to Kin et al. (hereinafter “King” – previously presented) in view of US Pat Pub No 20160287122 to Heneghan.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Heneghan and US Pat Pub no. 20150157258 to Beattie et al. (hereinafter “Beattie” – previously presented).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Heneghan and US Pat Pub no. 20160051168 to Kamali et al. (previously presented).
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 1-15 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03. Claim []recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claim 1 recites a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “receive at least one force data-stream [] for a single sleep session of a user [], the at least one force data-stream representing a force sensed []; identify a plurality of predetermined time intervals of a first duration and an overlap duration less than the first duration, each predetermined time interval overlapping with another predetermined time interval by the overlap duration; determine a biometric parameter of the user a user on the bed system at for each predetermined time interval based on processing the at least one force data- stream; generate an aggregate biometric parameter of the user for the sleep session based on aggregating the biometric parameters for the predetermined-time intervals; and return the aggregate biometric parameter of the user”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “bed system”, “leg(s)”, “force sensor”, “controller”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. It is further noted that segmenting data into various duration could be considered mere data processing and fall under extra-solution activity. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, 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 the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Claims 2-15 depend on claim 1. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, 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 dependent claim recites the limitations “second leg”, “second force sensor”, “predetermined time intervals”, “filter” etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, and recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). The additional limitations recited in various dependent claims which include various determinations which steps to be performed in mind and applying various models (including machine learning models) which are mathematical calculations.
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, 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 the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 1-15 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No. 20220071511 to Kin et al. (hereinafter “King”) in view of US Pat Pub No 20160287122 to Heneghan.
Regarding claim 1. King discloses a bed system (para 0041-0042 “health monitor system [] les of a bed”, figs 1A-B) comprising: a support element having at least one leg (para 0041 “legs o fa bed”, fig. 1B); at least one force sensor of the at least one leg (par 0041-0042 “one or more sensors 120 [] force-sensing strain gauge transducers”), the force sensor configured to sense a force applied to the bed system or the leg (para 0042 “force-sensing strain gauge transducers measure a force being applied to the respective sensor 120”); and a controller configured to: receive at least one force data-stream from the at least one force sensor for a single sleep session of a user of the bed system (para 0045 “processing device 130”), the at least one force data-stream representing a force sensed by the force sensor (para 0058); determine a biometric parameter of a user on the bed system at predetermined time intervals based on processing the at least one force data- stream (para 0054, 0058, etc.); generate an aggregate biometric parameter of the user based on aggregating the biometric parameters for the predetermined time intervals (para 0054 “respiratory monitoring using data obtained from the sensors 120”); and return the aggregate biometric parameter of the user (para 0054, 0091, figs 7A-B).
King fails to disclose identify a plurality of predetermined time intervals of a first duration and an overlap duration less than the first duration, each predetermined time interval overlapping with another predetermined time interval by the overlap duration.
Heneghan, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that it is known to have a time segmentation unit to break the ADR into distinct time segments (either overlapping or non-overlapping) such that a time segment may be composed of 10 minutes of recording, while the next would be a ten-minute segment chosen 1 minute later than the original segment (para 0330, 0366). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of King with the known teachings of Heneghan to provide segmenting the data to determine user data for each segment (para 0077, 0297, 0303, etc.).
Regarding claim 2. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the support element further includes a second leg having a second force sensor (fig 1B).
Regarding claim 3. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to: receive a second force data-stream from the second force sensor; and determine the biometric parameter of the user at the predetermined time intervals based on processing the at least one force data-stream and the second force data-stream (see rejection of claim 1, fig 1B, para 0054 “respiratory monitoring using data obtained from the sensors 120”).
Regarding claim 4. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 2, wherein the controller is configured to: detect a presence of the user on the bed system; identify, based on the detected user presence on the bed system, one of the at least one force sensor and the second force sensor that is nearest the user on the bed system; and receive a force data-stream corresponding to the identified force sensor, wherein the biometric parameter of the user is determined based on the received force data- stream (beginning on para 0063, mainly on para 0069 at step 1210, see fig 12A; in combination with para 0056 showing sensors predominantly measuring one person, therefore nearest sensor is being used for each person.).
Regarding claim 7. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to determine the biometric parameter of the user at the predetermined time intervals responsive to detection of bed presence of the user (para 0070-0074, fig 12A steps 1202-1212).
Regarding claim 8. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 1, King discloses providing continuous monitoring of the person (para 0047) wherein the predetermined time intervals are 15-second windows (para 0053).
Regarding claim 9. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined time intervals include a threshold amount of time after the user is detected to be awake (para 0051; the claim does not provide any details regarding what the threshold amount of time is).
Regarding claim 10. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined time intervals include a threshold amount of time after the user is detected to have left the bed system (para 0051; the claim does not provide any details regarding what the threshold amount of time is).
Regarding claim 11. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein processing the at least one force data-stream comprises: applying at least one filter to the force data-stream to remove noise from the force data-stream (para 0054, 0058); identifying instances when the filtered force data-stream crosses a threshold value; and determining a respiration rate of the user based on the identified instances that the filtered force data-stream crosses the threshold value (para 0058-0059).
Regarding claim 13. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 1, wherein processing the at least one force data-stream comprises: applying at least one filter to the force data-stream to remove noise from the force data-stream (para 0058, filtering); and applying a model to the filtered force data-stream to determine a heartrate of the user (para 0035, 0059 “monitoring heart rate”).
Regarding claim 6. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 3, wherein the controller is further configured to determine that the user and a partner are concurrently on the bed system based on applying a model to the force data-stream and the second force data-stream, (para 0071, 0074-0076, fig. 12A, step 1214).
King does not explicitly disclose the model having been trained with machine learning techniques to (i) isolate force data- streams of a partner-side of the bed system from force data-streams of a sleeper- side of the bed system and (ii) discard the force data-streams of the partner-side of the bed system. However, King does disclose using supervised or unsupervised machine learning. It is therefore understood that the machine learning of King would have been trained. King further discloses monitoring more than one person and each person is modeled as a respiratory point source allowing the respiratory signals of two individuals sharing the bed to be demixed using source separation mathematics (para 0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to discard the second person data when only one person is of interest.
Regarding claim 12. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 11, wherein the at least one filter is one of the group consisting of i) a notch filter at 60Hz, ii) an 8th order Chebyshev low-pass filter at 40Hz, iii) a notch filter at 19Hz, and iv) a 2nd order Chebyshev high-pass filter at 0.1 Hz (para 0058). King discloses various filters but fail to explicitly disclose the specific type of filter and its frequency. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, MPEP 2143 under KSR simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable result.
Regarding claim 14. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 13, wherein processing the at least one force data-stream further comprises resampling the filtered force data-stream (para 0010 “continuous monitoring”, 0053 various intervals, 0058 “filtering”). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine these teachings to provide the predictable result of continuously resample filtered data for continuous operation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Heneghan and US Pat Pub no. 20150157258 to Beattie et al. (hereinafter “Beattie”).
Regarding claim 5. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 4, wherein detecting a presence of the user on the bed system comprises: receiving the force data-stream from the force sensor and the second force data- stream from the second force sensor (para 0041, rejection of claim 1 and 4); but fails to disclose identifying an amplitude for each of the force data-stream and the second force data-stream; determining whether the amplitude of the force data-stream or the amplitude of the second force data-stream exceeds a threshold amplitude value; and identifying a location of the user on the bed system as nearest the at least one leg based on the amplitude of the force data-stream exceeding the threshold amplitude value.
Beattie, from a similar field of endeavor teaches wherein each pressure signal from the load cells contains information about the amplitude of the person including movement which would allow for various analysis such as determining the center of pressure on the bed (para 0029, 0046, 0047). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of King as modified by Heneghan with the teachings of Beattie to provide the predictable result of determining various parameters including movement.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Heneghan and US Pat Pub no. 20160051168 to Kamali et al.
Regarding claim 15. King as modified by Heneghan renders obvious the system of claim 14, but fails to disclose wherein resampling the filtered force data-stream comprises aggregating the filtered force data-stream by 10 ms intervals.
Kamali, from a similar field of endeavor teaches that some body area context signatures may require a longer aggregate of sensor input than other context signatures, for example one body area context signature may require a sample input aggregate size of 3 minutes while another body area context signature only requires a sample input aggregate size of 10 seconds (para 0053). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of King as modified by Heneghan with the known teachings of Kamali to provide the predictable result of collecting sensor input as desired. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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 S 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights