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 Objections
Claims 1, 7, 9, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, the phrase “and second period data” should be “and a second period data” as the second period data has not yet been claimed.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “is second corrected data group” should be “is a second corrected data group” as the second corrected data group has not yet been claimed. Appropriate correction 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 a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite an electronic device, sleep state determination method, and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, the recited steps are directed to a mental process and mathematical calculation of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)).
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, the limitations of “acquiring a plurality of first period data that is biological signal data of a user” are a mental process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human using a pen and paper under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional writing down the biological signal data.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, the limitations of “generating a first corrected data group by executing predetermined filter processing on the acquired plurality of first period data; generating a standard deviation data group by executing predetermined statistical processing on the plurality of first period data; deriving a threshold based on the first corrected data group and the standard deviation data group that are generated; and determining a sleep state of the user based on the threshold and second period data acquired in a second period different from the first period” are nothing more than a mental process or mathematical calculation as drafted. Filtering the biological signal data, deriving a threshold, and determining a sleep state of the user are directed to a mental process. For example, these steps are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing a patient’s sleep data to remove any outliers based on initial baseline data. The step of generating standard deviation data recites performing statistical processing, which is nothing more than statistical calculation of standard deviation.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claims 1, 9, and 15, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite “controller”. The controller is recited a high-level of generality and amounts to nothing more than generic processor (see [0028] and [0113] of the USPGPub. version of the specification). The acquisition of the “heart rate data” in claim 8 is performed by “a heart rate sensor.” The sensing is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. The “alarm” in claims 6, 14, and 20 is also is recited at a high-level of generality and is generated by the “controller” and amounts to no more than post-solution activity of adjusting alarm based on the sleep state determination.
Accordingly, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial except into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The controller, heart rate sensor, and alarm disclosed by the applicant are well-understood, routine, and conventional. 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)). Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim, as a whole, amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Accordingly, a conclusion that the generic computer functions merely being used to implement an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, “heart rate sensor” is are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. The specification discloses that pulse wave sensor detects plethysmogram that can be used for heart rate calculation (see [0030] and [0033]) and any known sensor that can detect a biological signal that can be used in determination of the recommended wake-up time (see [0107]), which demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of “heart rate sensor.” Accordingly, the use of heart rate sensor for data gathering purpose is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 1.For the limitation of adjusting alarm based on the sleep state determination, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate recomputing and readjusting alarm limit values is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, adjusting alarm based on the sleep state determination is an insignificant post-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13 and 16-19 further limit the abstract idea already indicated in independent claims 1, 9, and 15 and they are ineligible for the same reasons provided for claims 1, 9, and 15 above.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus they are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-10, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Almen (Pub. No.: US 2005/0177051 A1) in view of Russell et al. (Pub. No.: US 2018/0256094 A1); hereinafter referred to as “Russell”.
Regarding claims 1, 9, and 15, Almen discloses an electronic device comprising: a controller (e.g. see figure 11 element 54, [0081]) that acquires, in a first period, a plurality of first period data that is biological signal data of a user (e.g. see figure 13, [0085]-[0093], Specifically [0088] discloses “The essential theory of operation is that the heart rate data is first acquired by the monitor over a defined time interval”), generates a standard deviation data group by executing predetermined statistical processing on the plurality of first period data (e.g. see figure 13, [0085]-[0093], Specifically [0088] discloses “Awake parameters are then calculated, comprising the mean awake heart rate value and standard deviation thereof”), derives a threshold based on the first data group and the standard deviation data group that are generated (e.g. see figure 13, [0085]-[0093], Specifically [0088] discloses “This transition 106 is marked by a decrease in heart rate 104 and is recognized by the device when the heart rate decrease passes a defined threshold 106, e.g., three standard deviations below the awake sleep state heart rate mean value. The threshold values of +/- three standard deviations from the local mean heart rate values are for illustrative purposes only. Those skilled in the art will readily comprehend that a number of threshold values may be used, depending on the particular user, etc.”), and determines a sleep state of the user, based on the threshold and second period data acquired in a second period different from the first period (e.g. see figure 13, [0085]-[0093]).
Almen discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the controller generates a first corrected data group by executing predetermined filter processing on the acquired plurality of first period data. Russell teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0078] ([0078] discloses “Extreme values for heart rates over a period of time may also be filtered out before performing a statistical operation to determine a representative value for a respective type of heart rate”) to determine a representative value for a respective type of heart rate (e.g. see [0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a pre-filter to account for extreme values as taught by Russell in the system/method of Almen, since said modification would provide the predictable results of determining a representative value for a respective type of heart rate.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 16 Almen discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the predetermined filter processing includes processing for generating the first corrected data group by executing, as the predetermined filter processing, filter processing for replacing each of the acquired first period data with a minimum value of the first period data within a first window period. Russell teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0078] to determine a representative value for a respective type of heart rate (e.g. see [0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a pre-filter to account for extreme values as taught by Russell in the system/method of Almen, since said modification would provide the predictable results of determining a representative value for a respective type of heart rate.
Regarding claim 7, Almen discloses the claimed invention but is silent as to the second period data is second corrected data group obtained by applying the predetermined filter processing to the data acquired in the second period. Russell teaches it is known to use such a modification as set forth in [0078] to determine a representative value for a respective type of heart rate (e.g. see [0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a pre-filter to account for extreme values as taught by Russell in the system/method of Almen, since said modification would provide the predictable results of determining a representative value for a respective type of heart rate.
Regarding claim 8, Almen discloses the first period data is heart rate data (e.g. see [0085]-[0093], specifically [0088]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rytky et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0121126 A1) (see figure 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP C EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-1804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00-5:00 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/P.C.E/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792