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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 11 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments combined with the claim amendments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive with respect to the previous rejection(s). Applicant contends that the prior art of Bruce does not disclose any process that analyzes physiological data to determine the user is about to experience an event. The examiner respectfully disagrees. ¶¶ 5 of Bruce which discloses – “The audible sounds can comprise snoring sounds of the human, and the determining step can comprise determining that the audible sounds are indicative of the disorder. The disorder can be a sleep disorder. The disorder can be sleep apnea.” The examiner notes that the identification event of snoring, and due to that snoring, a determination is made that those sounds are indicative of sleep apnea (an event). This event could be occurring presently, and the disclosure shows evidence that it is continuing into the future, due to recording to capture details of the disorder – which would be reasonable interpretation of a prediction the user is about to experience the event. Applicant further contends that there is a difference between detecting an event that is already occurring and predicting that an event is about to occur before it has begun. The examiner agrees with applicant’s differentiation; however, the claim does not require the limitations necessary for applicant’s arguments to be persuasive. The claim does not preclude the user from experiencing the event prior to the identification of the triggering event. Furthermore, the scope of “the event” is unclear. The claims do not preclude the individual under analysis from having “an event” both before and after the triggering event occurs. Additionally, there is no determination that the user is experiencing an event – only prediction. There is no requirement or confirmation/determination that “an event” is occurring, nor are any additional steps tied into this prediction. Accordingly, the rejection under the same prior art is presented below. Due to the change in scope from the claim amendments, an updated grounds of rejection is presented below.
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 1-6, 9, 11-14, 18, 22, 24, 26-27 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the language: “identifying the triggering event includes predicting, based at least in part on the physiological data, that the user is about to experience an event during the sleep session”. The phrase “experience an event” is unclear as to whether this is referring to the triggering event previously identified, or an additional event separate and distinct from the triggering event. In addition, it is unclear whether this the triggering event is a type of event which falls under the event mentioned later in the phrase. Further clarification is required.
Claims 2-6, 9, 11-14, 18, 22, 24, 26-27 are rejected under the same rationale as being dependent upon claim 1 and its limitations.
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 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.
In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce et al. (US 2013/0144190; hereinafter “Bruce”) in view of Kahn et al. (USP# 10,791,986; hereinafter “Kahn”).
Regarding claim 1, Bruce teaches a method comprising: receiving physiological data associated with a sleep session of a user (e.g. ¶¶ 16); identifying a triggering event based at least in part on the physiological data, wherein identifying the triggering event includes predicting, based at least in part on the physiological data, that the user is about to experience an event during the sleep session (e.g. ¶¶ 5 – “The audible sounds can comprise snoring sounds of the human, and the determining step can comprise determining that the audible sounds are indicative of the disorder. The disorder can be a sleep disorder. The disorder can be sleep apnea.” – where the examiner considers the “triggering event” to be the snoring and the “event” to be an apnea – see ¶¶ 28 - “analysis on a portion (e.g., a suspected snore event) of the data” and ¶¶ 47 for further analysis of the snoring); generating image data in response to identifying the triggering event, the image data being reproducible as one or more images of at least a portion of the user (e.g. ¶¶ 47 – “trigger video capture”); determining that the user is no longer experiencing the triggering event based at least in part on the physiological data and ceasing generating the image data in response to determining that the user is no longer experiencing the triggering event (e.g. ¶¶ 28, 33, 45, etc. – where once the snoring is over the data is transmitted and image data is no longer recorded or relevant to that episode); and causing at least a portion of the image data to be communicated to the user subsequent to the sleep session (e.g. ¶¶ 16 – “the computer or server can generate reports of the sleep data and analysis that can in a controllable manner be shared with the user”).
Bruce fails to expressly disclose that the image data captures at least a portion of the triggering event. In the same field of endeavor, Kahn teaches monitoring sleep apnea via video camera with the options to turn on when sleep transition has occurred or when snoring is detected, or continuously (e.g. Col 3, ll 1-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present invention, to modify Bruce to monitor continuously as taught by Kahn or looped as is common in video recording, in order to yield the predictable results of providing the ability to record at least a portion of the triggering snoring event on video.
Regarding claim 2, Bruce discloses identifying the triggering event includes determining that the user is experiencing an event, wherein the event includes snoring, an apnea, a central apnea, an obstructive apnea, a mixed apnea, a hypopnea, a restless leg, a sleeping disorder, choking, labored breathing, an asthma attack, an epileptic episode, a seizure, or any combination thereof (e.g. ¶¶ 47 – snoring).
Regarding claim 3, Bruce discloses the event predicted to be experienced by the user includes an apnea (e.g. ¶¶ 5 – “The audible sounds can comprise snoring sounds of the human, and the determining step can comprise determining that the audible sounds are indicative of the disorder. The disorder can be a sleep disorder. The disorder can be sleep apnea.” – where the examiner considers the “triggering event” to be the snoring and the “event” to be an apnea – see ¶¶ 28 - “analysis on a portion (e.g., a suspected snore event) of the data” and ¶¶ 47 for further analysis of the snoring).
Regarding claim 4, Bruce discloses receiving audio data reproducible as one or more sounds associated with the user during at least a portion of the sleep session (e.g. ¶¶ 18).
Regarding claim 5, Bruce discloses identifying the triggering event is based at least in part on the audio data. (e.g. ¶¶ 18 – where snoring is detected from the microphone).
Regarding claim 6, Bruce discloses a first portion of the audio data is received prior to the identifying the triggering event and a second portion of the audio data is received in response to identifying the triggering event (e.g. ¶¶ 20-25).
Regarding claim 9, Bruce discloses modifying the audio data and communicating the modified audio data to the user subsequent to the sleep session, wherein the modifying the audio data includes adding one or more sound effects, modifying a playback speed of the audio data, applying one or more filters, or any combination thereof (e.g. ¶¶ 26).
Regarding claim 11, Bruce discloses the image data is generated using a camera (e.g. ¶¶ 5 – “detecting video signals from the human”).
Claims 12-14, 18, 22, 24, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruce in view of Kahn, further in view of Matsuoka et al. (US 2019/0026062; hereinafter “Matsuoka”).
Regarding claims 12-14 and 18, Bruce fails to expressly disclose prompting the user to position or modify the camera position such that the user is within a field of view. In the same field of endeavor, Matsuoka discloses the positioning of cameras within the sleep environment to ensure the user is within a field of view for observation, in order to acquire the appropriate data (e.g. ¶¶ 112). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the known technique of prompting the user to position or modify the camera position such that the user is within a field of view, as taught by Matsuoka, to improve the similar device of Bruce, in the same manner.
Regarding claims 22, 24, and 26, Bruce fails to expressly disclose analyzing image data and modifying the data to be communicated to the user. In the same field of endeavor, Matsuoka discloses analyzing image data and modifying the data to be communicated to the user (e.g. ¶¶ 110 – “filter out large motions that are not indicative of vital signs, such as users walking in front of the camera, or non-monitored subjects moving in the room”, “image can be scaled by a scaling factor to exaggerate the breathing motions of an infant”, etc.) to more effectively show the status of the user/patient/individual. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the known technique of analyzing image data and modifying the data to be communicated to the user, as taught by Matsuoka, to improve the similar device of Bruce, in the same manner.
Regarding claim 27, Bruce fails to expressly disclose modifying an ambient lighting to aid in generating the image data. In the same field of endeavor, Matsuoka discloses modifying an ambient lighting to aid in generating the image data (e.g. ¶¶ 56-57) to improve visual displays of the user/patient/individual. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to use the known technique of modifying an ambient lighting to aid in generating the image data, as taught by Matsuoka, to improve the similar device of Bruce, in the same manner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael D’Abreu whose telephone number is (571) 270-3816. The examiner can normally be reached on 7AM-4PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J D'ABREU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights