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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) been submitted on 07/03/24 has been considered by the examiner
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on May 12, 2026 is acknowledged. Therefore, Invention II (claims 13-30) has been withdrawn
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2 and 5-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a human subject”. Examiner notes it should read “the human subject”.
Claim 1 recites “the posture”. Examiner notes it should read “a posture”
Claim 2 recites “the beginning and end”. Examiner notes it should read “a beginning and end”
Claim 5 recites “the rate of change”. Examiner notes it should read “a rate of change”
Claim 6 recites “the time derivatives”. Examiner notes it should read “time derivatives”
Claim 7 recites “the cross-correlations”. Examiner notes it should read “reflected signal cross-correlations”
Claim 8 recites “the Root-Mean-Square (RMS)”. Examiner notes it should read “a Root-Mean-Square (RMS)”
Claims 9 and 10 recites “the number”. Examiner notes it should read “a number”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9-11 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 9 recites the limitations “about 25” and “about 1 second”, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes it is unclear how close the frames must be to 25 and the resolution must be to 1 to satisfy the limitations of the claim
Claim 10 recites the limitation “about 3 to 50” and “about 0.12 to 2 seconds”, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes it is unclear how close the frames and resolution must be to the range to satisfy the limitations of the claim
Claim 11 recites the limitation “about 1 second”, which is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Examiner notes it is unclear how close the resolution must be to 1 second to satisfy the limitations of the claim
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a methodology for identifying sleep disruptions of a subject. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
transmitting millimeter-wave (mmWave) wireless signals configured for interacting with a human subject;
receiving millimeter-wave (mmWave) wireless signals reflecting from the human subject to yield received signal reflections;
These limitations set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites identifying movements of the human subject based on the received signal reflections; and based on the identified movements, classifying the posture of the human subject into one of two states of rest or toss-turn, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The identifying movements of a human and classifying the posture does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the model, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of:
signals configured for interacting with a human subject
Additionally, claim 12 recites the additional limitation
the human subject is reclined on a bed, and at least one mmWave transmitter and receiving antenna is positioned in a range from 2 to 5 meters away from the human subject
The providing and recording steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the providing and recording steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-11 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1-12 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Shin (US 2022/0047208)
Regarding claim 1, Shin teaches methodology for identifying sleep disruptions of a human subject [par. 149], comprising: transmitting millimeter-wave (mmWave) wireless signals configured for interacting with a human subject [par. 117, 144, 145]; receiving millimeter-wave (mmWave) wireless signals reflecting from the human subject to yield received signal reflections [par. 145]; identifying movements of the human subject based on the received signal reflections [par. 147-149]; and based on the identified movements, classifying the posture of the human subject into one of two states of rest or toss-turn [par. 134, 149, 227]
Regarding claim 3, Shin further teaches identifying movements includes processing the received signal reflections to amplify toss-turn changes to distinguish them from rest states [par. 75, 76]
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 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and in further view of Heneghan (US 2018/0064388)
Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches methodology for identifying sleep disruptions of a human subject, as disclosed above
However, Shin does not teach determining temporal estimations of the beginning and end of the respective states, and length of states, during a time period during which the human subject is monitored for a plurality of rest and toss-turn states
Heneghan teaches determining temporal estimations of the beginning and end of the respective states, and length of states, during a time period during which the human subject is monitored for a plurality of rest and toss-turn states [par. 50]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Sham, to incorporate subtracting the repetitive portions from the output signal to provide non-repetitive portions and determining, based on the non-repetitive portions, one or more subsets of data values indicative of one or more abnormal/pathological sound patterns detected from within the subject's body, for removing noise from the signal, as evidence by Zia [col. 7: lines 33-60]
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and in further view of Tran (US 2020/0077892)
Regarding claim 4, Shin teaches methodology for identifying sleep disruptions of a human subject, as disclosed above
However, Shin does not teach performing Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) processing on the received signal reflections
Tran teaches performing Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) processing on the received signal reflections [par. 177 (pg. 40, col. 2, par. 2-pg. 41, col. 1, par. 1)]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin, to incorporate performing Short-Time Fourier Transform (STFT) processing on the received signal reflections, for converting the energy amplitude values into a logarithmic value which reduces subsequent computation since the logarithmic values are simpler to perform calculations on, as evidence by Tran [pg. 41, col. 1, par. 1]
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Tran and in further view of Clark (US 2023/0073174) and Olde (US 2012/0283581)
Regarding claim 5, Shin and Tran teach methodology for identifying sleep disruptions of a human subject, as disclosed above
Shin teaches amplifying toss-turn changes by determining frequency peaks in successive frames of the reflected signals for determining movement [par. 69, 119-121]; and estimating the rate of change in the frames [par. 92, 119-121]
However, Shin and Tran do not teach applying cross-correlation between successive frames of the signals to generate a peak correlation output, and estimating the rate of change in the peak correlation output
Clark teaches applying cross-correlation between successive frames of the signals to generate a peak correlation output [par. 220, 228, 229];
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin and Tran, to incorporate applying cross-correlation between successive frames of the signals to generate a peak correlation output, for indicating an analytical representation of the similarities of the signals, as evidence by Clark [par. 229]
Olde teaches estimating the rate of change in the peak correlation output [par. 592, 593]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin, Tran and Clark, to incorporate estimating the rate of change in the peak correlation output, for filtering signal segments, as evidence by Olde [par. 593]
Regarding claim 6, Olde further teaches the estimating comprises using the time-derivatives of the reflected signal cross-correlations [par. 592, 593]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin, Tran and Clark, to incorporate the estimating comprises using the time-derivatives of the reflected signal cross-correlations, for filtering signal segments, as evidence by Olde [par. 593]
Regarding claim 7, Clark teaches to reduce oscillations between false detections and states, smoothing the cross-correlations over time by using an envelope detector [par. 220]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin, Tran and Olde, to incorporate to reduce oscillations between false detections and states, smoothing the cross-correlations over time by using an envelope detector, for adding sinusoidal waves, as evidence by Clark [par. 242]
Regarding claim 8, Clark further teaches wherein using the envelope detector comprises using a Hilbert Transformation, using the Root-Mean-Square (RMS) of cross-correlation amplitudes over N consecutive frames [par. 220, 234]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin, Tran and Olde, to incorporate wherein using the envelope detector comprises using a Hilbert Transformation, using the Root-Mean-Square (RMS) of cross-correlation amplitudes over N consecutive frames, for joining envelopes, as evidence by Clark [par. 234]
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin, Tran, Clark and Olde and in further view of Harel (US 2023/0337928)
Regarding claim 9, Shin, Tran, Clark and Olde teach methodology for identifying sleep disruptions of a human subject, as disclosed above
However, Shin, Tran, Clark and Olde do not teach wherein the number of N consecutive frames is about 25, for an RMS resolution of about 1 second of consecutive reflected signals, for envelope estimation
Harel teaches wherein the number of N consecutive frames is about 25 [par. 102, 103], for an RMS resolution of about 1 second of consecutive reflected signals, for envelope estimation [par. 102, 103, 142]
Although Harel does not explicitly teach the number of N consecutive frames is about 25, this would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed since Harel also suggests correlation indices may be generated for multiple heart rates by segmenting the sample into segment-windows of various lengths [par. 103]. Therefore, incorporating the number of N consecutive frames is about 25, would only involve routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Harel further teaches the number of N consecutive frames is in a range of about 3 to 50 [par. 102, 103], for a corresponding range of RMS resolution of about 0.12 to 2 seconds of consecutive reflected signals, for envelope estimation [par. 102, 103, 142]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin, Tran, Clark and Olde, to incorporate the number of N consecutive frames is in a range of about 3 to 50 [par. 102, 103], for a corresponding range of RMS resolution of about 0.12 to 2 seconds of consecutive reflected signals, to assess the degree of periodicity, as evidence by Harel [par. 102]
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and in further view of Clark, Olde, Harel and Caparso (US 2024/0165411)
Regarding claim 11, Shin teaches methodology for identifying sleep disruptions of a human subject, as disclosed above
However, Shin does not teach determining: cross-correlations between consecutive received signal reflections; time-derivative representations of the cross-correlations; and envelope estimations of the time-derivative representations with Root-Mean- Square (RMS) of samples for about one second; and wherein classifying the posture is based on the envelope estimations
Clark teaches applying cross-correlation between consecutive received signal reflections [par. 220, 228, 229];
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin, to incorporate applying cross-correlation between consecutive received signal reflections, for indicating an analytical representation of the similarities of the signals, as evidence by Clark [par. 229]
Olde teaches time-derivative representations of the cross-correlations [par. 592, 593]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin, to incorporate time-derivative representations of the cross-correlations, for filtering signal segments, as evidence by Olde [par. 593]
Harel teaches envelope estimations of the time-derivative representations with Root-Mean- Square (RMS) of samples for about one second [par. 102, 103, 142]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin, to incorporate envelope estimations of the time-derivative representations with Root-Mean- Square (RMS) of samples for about one second, to assess the degree of periodicity, as evidence by Harel [par. 102]
Caparso teaches wherein classifying the posture is based on the envelope estimations [par. 403, 474]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin, to incorporate wherein classifying the posture is based on the envelope estimations, as the sleep state of the patient can be inferred from features that facilitate detecting large amplitude aperiodic motions, as evidence by Caparso [par. 403]
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin and Heneghan and in further view of Asanoi (US 2012/0125337)
Regarding claim 12, Shin and Heneghan teach methodology for identifying sleep disruptions of a human subject, as disclosed above
However, Shin and Heneghan do not teach monitoring [[a]] the human subject using an observation arrangement in which the human subject is reclined on a bed, and at least one mmWave transmitter and receiving antenna is positioned in a range from 2 to 5 meters away from the human subject, with the antenna having a sufficiently large beamwidth to cover the whole bed area of the bed on which the human subject is reclined
Asanoi teaches monitoring the human subject using an observation arrangement in which the human subject is reclined on a bed, and at least one mmWave transmitter and receiving antenna is positioned in a range from 2 to 5 meters away from the human subject, with the antenna having a sufficiently large beamwidth to cover the whole bed area of the bed on which the human subject is reclined [par. 182, 185]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art when the invention was filed to modify the method as taught by Shin and Heneghan, to incorporate monitoring the human subject using an observation arrangement in which the human subject is reclined on a bed, and at least one mmWave transmitter and receiving antenna is positioned in a range from 2 to 5 meters away from the human subject, with the antenna having a sufficiently large beamwidth to cover the whole bed area of the bed on which the human subject is reclined, for non-contact detection, as evidence by Asanoi [par. 182]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACE L ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm, alt F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571)272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of publish
ed 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.
/GRACE L ROZANSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights