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 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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation "the obtained audio" in line 11 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the posture” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “identify the user’s breathing sound based on audio obtained via the microphone”. However, Vlaim1 already claims breathing sound data is identified by audio obtained via the microphone. It is unclear if this is a redundantly claimed limitation that is reciting the same thing or if Applicant intends to again identify a breathing sound in a separate step.
Claim 3 recites “a first threshold “ twice in the claim thus implying a distinct threshold value for each threshold. It is unclear fi Applicant intended the second mention of “a first threshold” was instead meant to be “the first threshold” and thus make the threshold value the same. Claim 4 contains the same issue with the phrase “a second threshold value”.
Claim 3 recites, “…based on audio obtained via the microphone corresponding the sleep breathing sound” is not clear and appears to be missing words. No clear meaning could be derived from this limitation. Claim 4 contains the same issue.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second movement radius " in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the user’s posture " in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 has the same issue.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the basis " in line3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 states “…configured to identify the breathing sound based on data from which noise is remove, instead of the breathing sound”. This limitation essentially says identifying the breathing sound instead of the breathing sound, which is unclear.
Claim 9 states”…based on a posture of a user”. It is unclear if this is a different user than what is previously claimed (therefore assessing multiple users) of if Applicant is intending to only assess one user. As currently written, there would be multiple users and the subsequent mention of “the user” is not clear as to which user Applicant is referring to.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the communication interface" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the sleep state " in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the obtained audio" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12-15 have similar issues to claims 2-5 above.
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, 2, 7, 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asleep, Co. LTD (KR 102429256B1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Asleep discloses a system having a communication interface 110; a microphone (in terminal 10, “For example, sleep sound information related to the user's sleeping environment may be obtained through a microphone module provided in the user terminal 10”; p. 5 of the translation); memory 120 and one or more processors 150 (Fig. 2, 3). Asleep further discloses that multiple sound signals (i.e. reflection signals) are received and analyzed via spectrogram (which Applicant likewise discloses, see par. [0114] of PGPUB 2024/0335163, which is the publication of the present application), wherein a first signal (breathing pattern) is analyzed to determine a sleep state (and not a voice recognition function) and wherein a second signal (movement pattern) is analyzed in conjunction with a breathing sound to determine a sleep state (“According to an embodiment, the feature extraction model 410 may analyze the time-series frequency pattern of the spectrogram 300 to extract features related to a breathing sound, a breathing pattern, and a movement pattern”, p. 9 of the translation).
In regard to Claims 2 and 12, Asleep discloses obtaining multiple signals over time wherein each time a signal is acquired, movement patterns are determined (which include posture, such as movement while lying down to sleep). Voice recognition functions are not performed with this data and it is instead used to identify sleep states wherein breathing sounds are also analyzed as part of the spectrogram analysis (“According to an embodiment, the feature extraction model 410 may analyze the time-series frequency pattern of the spectrogram 300 to extract features related to a breathing sound, a breathing pattern, and a movement pattern”, p. 9 of the translation).
Regarding Claim 7, Asleep discloses differentiating REM, waking, light sleep, etc. via the analysis of spectrogram data (p. 8 of the translation).
In regard to Claim 8, Asleep discloses preprocessing the signals to remove noise (“As described above, the processor 150 may pre-process the sleep sound information obtained with a low signal-to-noise ratio, and obtain a spectrogram based on the pre-processed sleep sound information.”, p. 10 of the translation).
Regarding Claim 10, Asleep discloses information can be transmitted across a network to other computers/servers and to the cloud (Fig. 2).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asleep, Co. LTD (KR 102429256B1) in view of Enplug Co., LTD (KR 20200129426A).
In regard to Claims 3, 4, 13 and 14, Asleep discloses all of the claimed invention except for analyzing a movement frequency to determine a sleep state. However, Enplug discloses that in addition to breathing sounds (which is disclosed by Asleep), frequency and degree of tossing and turning (which involve radii of movement) in a posture state can be determined by a posture detection unit 160 for the purpose of more accurately identifying a state of sleep of a user (p. 3 of the translation). This can be done on multiple signals over time. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in the Asleep reference to include detecting a frequency of tossing and turning in a particular posture state, as taught and suggested by Enplug, for the purpose of more accurately identifying a state of sleep of a user.
Regarding Claim 6, Asleep and Enplug disclose detecting posture such as crouching, lying down, standing, etc. (“The posture detection unit 160 is for detecting the posture or movement of a user who is sleeping, and takes an image of the user at every set period (eg, 5 seconds, 10 seconds, etc.) using an infrared camera, for example, and By analyzing the user's sleeping posture, and checking the frequency of turning. The user's sleeping posture may be detected as one of a right posture, a prone posture, a right crouched posture, and a left crouched posture. For more precise analysis, you can further subdivide your sleeping position. For example, the correct posture can be further subdivided into a posture facing the ceiling, a posture with the head tilted to the right, and a posture with the head tilted to the left, or a posture with the head tilted to the right and the head tilted to the left. It can be further subdivided into posture, etc.”, Enplug, p. 3 of the translation).
In regard to Claim 9, Asleep discloses all of the claimed invention except for analyzing brain wave information of a user. However, Enplug discloses analyzing brain wave information of a user in conjunction with other signals such as sound signals, for the purpose of accurately identifying a sleep state of a user (“In general, sleep consists of rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and non-REM sleep alternately, and REM sleep accounts for 20-25% of total sleep, and non-REM sleep accounts for 75-80%. In addition, non-REM sleep is divided into four stages, and it is known that the characteristics of brain waves are different for each stage. For example, theta activity (3.5-7.5Hz) appears in stage 1 sleep, theta wave, sleep spindle, and sharp waveform K complex appear in sleep stage 3, and sleep stage 3 A delta wave with a large amplitude (delta activity: 3.5Hz or less) appears in, and it is known that the delta wave increases by 50% or more in the fourth stage of sleep. It is known that theta waves appear sporadically in the REM sleep stage… The sleep step may be determined directly by detecting the brain waves of a sleeping user, or may be determined indirectly using other biometric signals that can be measured in a non-contact manner.”. p. 4 of the translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in the Asleep reference to include brain wave sensing, as taught and suggested by Enplug, for the purpose of accurately identifying a sleep state of a user.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asleep, Co. LTD (KR 102429256B1) in view of Salahuddin et al. (2021/0407532). Asleep discloses all of the claimed invention except for changing operation modes base don voice commands ( suspending a device oepriaotn in favor of a voice recognition mode). However, in the same field of endeavor of sound detection in medical devices, Salahuddin discloses activating a voice recognition function and a subsequent communication mode when a user voice input is detected (intelligible speech which would occur over a certain amount of time, see Abstract, par. [0011) for the purpose of providing hands-free control of multi-use devices that can quickly and efficiently cycle between modes as desired (par. [0003-0009]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device in the Asleep reference to include voice recognition that allows switching between operational modes, as taught and suggested by Salahuddin, for the purpose of providing hands-free control of multi-use devices that can quickly and efficiently cycle between modes as desired.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN PORTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00 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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights