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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 14-21 in the reply filed on 12/17/25 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 14-21 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 14 (the rest by dependency) recites “checking a user”. It is unclear what this means. Checking the user for what? Is the claim referring to checking for a user’s presence? A user’s vital sign? The scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 14 (15, 17-21 by dependency) recites “objective sleep quality”. It is unclear what this means. Applicant has not provided any special definition for “objective sleep quality”. The scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 14 (15-16, 18-21 by dependency) recites “subjective sleep quality”. It is unclear what this means. Applicant has not provided any special definition for “subjective sleep quality”. The scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim 14 (the rest by dependency) recites “measure subjective sleep quality through the AI speaker”. It is unclear what this means. Is additional information being sent to the AI speaker? Does the AI speaker have additional sensors? Is the AI speaker actually ‘measuring’ sleep quality or is it merely determining quality based on other collected information/data?
Claim 14 (the rest by dependency) recites “recognition error and compensatory behavior”. It is unclear what this means.
Claim 14 (the rest by dependency) recites in step (e) “a recognition error and compensatory behavior”. This limitation is previously recited in step (d). Is Applicant referring to a new “recognition error and compensatory behavior” or referring back to the “recognition error and compensatory behavior” recited in step (d)?
Claim 15 recites “a user”. It is unclear if Applicant is referring to the user recited in claim 14 or a new/different user.
Claim 18 recites measuring in step c) is performed by a correction assistance device. It is unclear how this can be as claim 14 states that the measuring is done thought the AI speaker. Is the correction assistance device part of the AI speaker? Or is the AI speaker merely an intermediary between the user and the correction assistance device?
Claim 19 refers to “users”. Examiner notes that claim 14 only refers to a single user.
Claim 21 refers to a display. Is the display part of the AI speaker or a separate device?
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.
Claim 14-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) measuring objective sleep quality; measuring subjective sleep quality; measuring a recognition error and compensatory behavior. The abstract idea is part of the Organizing Human Activity group(s) identified in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer; data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity; there is no improvement to a computer or other technology; does not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine. The additional elements are identified as follows: a mattress; an AI speaker. The claim(s) does/do 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 a whole, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional computer and data-gathering elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer and data-gathering functions that do not add meaningful limitations to practicing the abstract idea.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by Applicant’s Background Art in the instant application and non-patent literature of record in the application. Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Federal Circuit has held that combining additional elements for data-gathering with abstract ideas does not make a claim patent-eligible. Looking at the claim limitations 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data gathering that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry. Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known data-gathering equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
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(s) 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auphan (US 2005/0143617 A1) in view of Cail (US 2020/0281521 A1 – cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 14, Auphan teaches: A method of improving sleep quality, the method comprising:
(b) measuring objective sleep quality of the user and transmitting the measured information (figure 5; paragraph 0039; 0068);
(c) measuring subjective sleep quality of the user (figure 5; paragraph 0040-0042; 0057);
(d) measuring a recognition error and compensatory behavior by analyzing a match degree of the objective sleep quality information and the subjective sleep quality information (figure 5; paragraph 0020; 0035); and
(e) providing feedback information according to the result of measuring a recognition error and compensatory behavior (paragraph 0020; 0035).
Auphan does not explicitly mention (a) checking a user on a mattress ; or the use of an AI speaker.
Cail teaches (a) checking a user on a mattress (paragraph 0028). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the method to include (a) checking a user on a mattress to confirm a user’s presence before obtaining subjective and objective measures.
Cail further teaches the use of an AI smart speaker (paragraph 0037-0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to have modified the method to include the use of an AI speaker as the substitution of one computing device for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding Claim 15, Auphan in view of Cail teach: The method of claim 14, wherein weight or body pressure of a user is measured for the checking of a user of the step (a) (Cail – paragraph 0028).
Regarding Claim 16, Auphan in view of Cail teach: The method of claim 14, wherein the objective sleep quality information includes one or more items of information of a total sleep time, sleep onset latency, an arousal time, or sleep efficiency (Auphan – paragraph 0039).
Regarding Claim 17, Auphan in view of Cail teach: The method of claim 14, wherein the subjective sleep quality information includes any one or more items of information of a time of lying on the mattress, a time of getting out of the mattress, a time of falling asleep, a time of waking up, the time of taking a medicine or drinking, an exercise time, a nap time, and the degree of feeling well after sleeping (Auphan - paragraph 0041).
Regarding Claim 18, Auphan in view of Cail teach: The method of claim 14, wherein the measuring subjective sleep quality of the step (c) is performed by a behavior correction assistance device spatially spaced apart from the mattress (Auphan – paragraph 0030; Cail – paragraph 0037).
Regarding Claim 19, Auphan in view of Cail teach: The method of claim 14, wherein sleep-relevant questions for users are programmed in advance in the AI speaker to measure subjective sleep quality of users (Auphan - paragraph 0042; Cail – paragraph 0052).
Regarding Claim 20, Auphan in view of Cail teach: The method of claim 14, wherein the providing of feedback information of the step (e) is made through a voice of the AI speaker (Cail – paragraph 0037, 0040, 0042).
Regarding Claim 21, Auphan in view of Cail teach: The method of claim 14, wherein the providing of feedback information of the step (e) is made through a voice of the AI speaker or visualized information of a display (Cail – paragraph 0037, 0040, 0042).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY B SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0686. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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 Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
JAY SHAH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JAY B SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights