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 .
Response to Amendment
2. This action is responsive to the amendments filed 3/16/2026. Claims 1 and 9 have been amended. No claims were newly added. Claim 10 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 101
3. Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/16/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In substance, applicant argues
A) The claims do not recite mental steps or organization of human activity because they integrate multiple hardware components (i.e. respiratory therapy system, wearable device) performing in real time and B) The claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and C) The additional elements of a respiratory therapy system and a wearable device are not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
4. In response to A) the examiner respectfully disagrees.
At the onset, the Examiner notes that it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014)). The additional elements of a respiratory therapy system and a wearable device are nothing more than what is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art as shown in the rejection below. With regards to Applicant’s assertion that the acts are performed in “real time”, the Examiner notes that the term “real time” is not recited in the claims and that the claims as written set forth no time constraints. Additionally, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
5. In response to B) the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The method steps themselves can be practically carried out in the mind and/or by pen and paper. For example, “responsive to the user adopting the recommended default sleep pattern, determining first sleep quality data for the user during one or more first sleep sessions, the first sleep quality data being derived from data collected by the respiratory therapy system; identifying based, at least in part, on the first sleep quality data an optimum sleep pattern for the user; and presenting a dashboard to the user that indicates how the optimum sleep pattern and the providing the direction have impacted sleep of the user” can be carried out by a clinician analyzing sleep printouts of sleep session data comprising respiratory therapy system to determine sleep quality, figuring out a pattern based on the printouts, and then writing down the pattern. Furthermore, the limitations of “recommending a default sleep pattern for the user based, at least in part, on crowd-sourced sleep data”, “prior to, during, or both of one or more second sleep sessions, providing direction to the user to encourage the user to sleep in the optimum sleep pattern, wherein the direction includes delivering a mechanical stimulation to the user”, and “detecting a change in sleep position of the user and delivering the mechanical stimulation in response to detecting the change in sleep position, the mechanical stimulation comprising a specific vibration pattern related to the sleep position of the user” is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitations that are directed to organizing human activity. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a clinician comparing a patient’s sleep data comprising respiratory therapy system data with sleep data comprising respiratory therapy system data of other patients, verbally communicating a recommendation of a default sleep pattern based on trends, giving directions/instructions to a patient on how to improve their sleep, and a clinician, wearing personal protective equipment, nudging/shaking the patient to induce a change in sleep position during a sleep session. Additionally, the Examiner notes that merely using a computer and its generic components as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Moreover, the judicial exception is also not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technological field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)) and there is no application of the judicial exception in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (e.g. sleep environment). Furthermore, it is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement (see MPEP 2106.05(a)) and it also important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology and an improvement to an abstract idea would still be an abstract idea.
6. In response to C) the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The additional element of a respiratory therapy system collecting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional as shown in at least Doelling et al. (US Pub.: 2011/0295083 A1), Harrington et al (US Pub.: 2009/0007922 A1), and Aarts (US Pub.: 2008/0308112 A1). Furthermore, the additional element of a wearable device providing mechanical stimulation is well-understood, routine, and conventional as shown in at least Levendowski et al. (US Pub.: 2020/0261020 A1), Burton (US Pub.: 2021/0169417 A1), and van Beest (US Pub.: 2016/0073935 A1). Additionally, the Examiner directs applicant to the prior art rejection below.
The 101 rejection is maintained and has been updated to reflect the amendments.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
7. Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/16/2026 with respect to the 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention and thus fails as eligible subject matter.
10. Claim 18 characterizes the invention as a “computer program product comprising instructions”. A broadest reasonable interpretation of this language typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media, software, and transitory propagating signals per se, which are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims that cover both statutory and non-statutory embodiments under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art, embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is considered to be broad enough to cover a transitory propagating signal that carries a programmed instruction set. Furthermore, even when the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claim must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception without a particular practical application. In the instant case, in addition to failing to fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention, the claim recites only instructions, i.e. an algorithm that is not limited to a particular practical application. Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions” (essentially incorporating claim 19 into claim 18).
11. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claimed invention in claims 1-19 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a method (i.e. a process). Thus, they are directed to statutory categories of invention (See MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A – (Prong 1): Independent claim 1 recites a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of
“responsive to the user adopting the recommended default sleep pattern, determining first sleep quality data for the user during one or more first sleep sessions, the first sleep quality data being derived from data collected by the respiratory therapy system; identifying based, at least in part, on the first sleep quality data an optimum sleep pattern for the user; and presenting a dashboard to the user that indicates how the optimum sleep pattern and the providing the direction have impacted sleep of the user”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) or by a person using a pen and paper. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a clinician analyzing sleep printouts of sleep session data comprising respiratory therapy system to determine sleep quality, figuring out a pattern based on the printouts, and then writing down the pattern.
Additionally, regarding claim 1, the limitations of “recommending a default sleep pattern for the user based, at least in part, on crowd-sourced sleep data”, “prior to, during, or both of one or more second sleep sessions, providing direction to the user to encourage the user to sleep in the optimum sleep pattern, wherein the direction includes delivering a mechanical stimulation to the user”, and “detecting a change in sleep position of the user and delivering the mechanical stimulation in response to detecting the change in sleep position, the mechanical stimulation comprising a specific vibration pattern related to the sleep position of the user” is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitations that are directed to organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For example, these limitations are nothing more than a clinician comparing a patient’s sleep data comprising respiratory therapy system data with sleep data comprising respiratory therapy system data of other patients, verbally communicating a recommendation of a default sleep pattern based on trends, giving directions/instructions to a patient on how to improve their sleep, and a clinician, wearing personal protective equipment, nudging/shaking the patient to induce a change in sleep position during a sleep session. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Step 2A – (Prong 2):
Regarding claim 1, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application and does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the steps of “first sleep quality data being derived from data collected by the respiratory system”, “delivering a mechanical stimulation to the user via a wearable device” and “presenting a dashboard to the user”. The dashboard is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to nothing more than a display which is a part of a generic computer and is also post-solution activity of presenting data on a dashboard. Furthermore, the respiratory therapy system and the wearable device are recited at a high-level of generality that are well-known and amount to nothing more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. Additionally, claims 16-17 recites a control system with a memory and processor and claims 18-19 recites a computer program product with a computer readable medium. The control system, processor, and computer readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a dashboard, control system, processor, and computer readable medium amount to no more than 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)). Additionally, the respiratory therapy system and the wearable device are recited at a high-level of generality that are well-known and amount to nothing more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. Moreover, the additional element of a respiratory therapy system collecting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional as shown in at least Doelling et al. (US Pub.: 2011/0295083 A1), Harrington et al (US Pub.: 2009/0007922 A1), and Aarts (US Pub.: 2008/0308112 A1). Furthermore, the additional element of a wearable device providing mechanical stimulation is well-understood, routine, and conventional as shown in at least Levendowski et al. (US Pub.: 2020/0261020 A1), Burton (US Pub.: 2021/0169417 A1), and van Beest (US Pub.: 2016/0073935 A1).
12. Regarding dependent claims 2-9 and 11-15, the limitations of claim 2-9 and 11-15 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea. While the dependent claims further define the abstract idea, it does not set forth any additional elements that integrate the claims into a practical application or add any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, when considered as a whole and in combination, claims 1-19 are directed to an abstracted idea and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
14. Claims 1 and 5-8, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al. (US Pub.: 2019/0371197 A1, – Previously Cited) and further in view of Weale et al. (International Publication No.: WO 2021/021835 A1) and further in view of Levendowski et al. (US Pub.: 2020/0261020 A1, – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 1, Arnold discloses a method for sleep training a user, the method comprising:
recommending a default sleep pattern for the user based, at least in part, on crowd-sourced sleep data (e.g. paragraph 0124, – recommended sleep duration is based at least in part of other users);
responsive to the user adopting the recommended default sleep pattern, determining first sleep quality data for the user during one or more first sleep sessions, the first sleep quality data being derived from data collected (e.g. paragraph 0130);
identifying based, at least in part, on the first sleep quality data an optimum sleep pattern for the user (e.g. paragraphs 0130, 0146, – using sleep data from sleep log to provide user with a recommended bedtime that increases likelihood of consistent and healthy sleep);
prior to, during, or both of one or more second sleep sessions, providing direction to the user to encourage the user to sleep in the optimum sleep pattern (e.g. paragraphs 0184, 0190, – notification to help user meet their sleep goal), wherein the direction includes delivering a mechanical stimulation to the user via a wearable device (e.g. paragraph 0184 – notification includes tactile feedback, e.g., vibration);
and subsequent to the one or more second sleep sessions, presenting a dashboard to the user that indicates how the optimum sleep pattern and the providing the direction have impacted sleep of the user (e.g. Fig. 37 – summary information 3702; paragraphs 0192, 0195).
However, Arnold does not explicitly teach that the user is a user of a respiratory therapy system; providing the respiratory therapy system; and that the first sleep quality data is being derived from derived from data collected by the respiratory therapy system; the wearable device detecting a change in sleep position of the user and delivering the mechanical stimulation in response to detecting the change in sleep position, the mechanical stimulation comprising a specific vibration pattern related to the sleep position of the user.
Weale, in a same field of endeavor of sleep improvement methods, discloses that the user is a user of a respiratory therapy system (e.g. paragraphs 0036-0037); providing the respiratory therapy system (e.g. paragraph 0037; 0063); and that the first sleep quality data is being derived from derived from data collected by the respiratory therapy system (e.g. paragraph 0037; 0063).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Arnold to include that the user is a user of a respiratory therapy system; providing the respiratory therapy system; and that the first sleep quality data is being derived from derived from data collected by the respiratory therapy system, as taught and suggested by Weale, in order to tailor therapy to users with respiratory disorders (i.e. obstructive sleep apnea (OSA)).
However, Arnold in view of Weale does not explicitly teach the wearable device detecting a change in sleep position of the user and delivering the mechanical stimulation in response to detecting the change in sleep position, the mechanical stimulation comprising a specific vibration pattern related to the sleep position of the user.
Levendowski, in a same field of endeavor of sleep improvement methods, discloses the wearable device detecting a change in sleep position of the user and delivering the mechanical stimulation in response to detecting the change in sleep position (e.g. paragraphs 0009-0010; 0040), the mechanical stimulation comprising a specific vibration pattern related to the sleep position of the user (e.g. paragraphs 0009-0010; 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Arnold and Weale to incorporate the wearable device detecting a change in sleep position of the user and delivering the mechanical stimulation in response to detecting the change in sleep position, the mechanical stimulation comprising a specific vibration pattern related to the sleep position of the user, as taught and suggested by Weale, in order to enhance the treatment outcome and quality of sleep of individuals with sleep disordered breathing (Levendowski, paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 5, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Arnold further teaches wherein the first sleep quality data correlates historical sleep positions of the user with historical sleep events of the user related to a quality of sleep (e.g. paragraphs 0095-0096).
Regarding claim 6, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method of claim 5 as discussed above, and Arnold further teaches wherein the historical sleep events include an amount and a type of movement, a total amount sleep, an amount of REM sleep, an amount of deep sleep, an amount of light sleep, a length of time to fall asleep, a number of sleep interruptions, an amount of snoring, a number of apnea events, a measure of blood oxygen saturation, or any combination thereof (e.g. Fig. 37; paragraphs 0095-0096).
Regarding claim 7, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Arnold further teaches wherein the default sleep pattern is determined based on a common sleep pattern among one or more crowd-sourced users associated with the crowd-sourced sleep data who share one or more demographic, medical or physiological traits, or any combination thereof, with the user (e.g. paragraph 0124).
Regarding claim 8, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Arnold further teaches further comprising presenting information on the dashboard regarding which sleep position, sleep pattern, or any combination thereof provides a fewest number of sleep disordered breathing events (e.g. paragraphs 0095-0096).
Regarding claim 11, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Arnold further teaches wherein the optimum sleep pattern is identified based, at least in part, on feedback from the user (e.g. paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 13, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Levendowski further teaches wherein the default sleep pattern is a default sleep position, a default initial position, a default predetermined position which the user should maintain for a predetermined period of sleep, or a combination of positions during sleep (e.g. paragraph 0057, 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Arnold, Weale, and Levendowski to include wherein the default sleep pattern is a default sleep position, a default initial position, a default predetermined position which the user should maintain for a predetermined period of sleep, or a combination of positions during sleep, as taught and suggested by Levendowski, in order to provide the predictable results of further improving the quality of sleep in a user by assisting them in sleeping in a different position (Levendowski, paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 14, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Levendowski further teaches wherein the optimum sleep pattern is an optimum sleep position, an optimum initial position, an optimum predetermined position which the user should maintain for a predetermined period of sleep, or a combination of positions during sleep (e.g. paragraph 0057, 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Arnold, Weale, and Levendowski to include wherein the optimum sleep pattern is an optimum sleep position, an optimum initial position, an optimum predetermined position which the user should maintain for a predetermined period of sleep, or a combination of positions during sleep, as taught and suggested by Levendowski, in order to provide the predictable results of further improving the quality of sleep in a user by assisting them in sleeping in a different position (Levendowski, paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 15, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Levendowski further teaches wherein the direction includes instructions to use a device to encourage a certain sleep position (e.g. paragraphs 0040, 0057, 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Arnold, Weale, and Levendowski to include wherein the direction includes instructions to use a device to encourage a certain sleep position, as taught and suggested by Levendowski, in order to provide the predictable results of further improving the quality of sleep in a user by assisting them in sleeping in a different position (Levendowski, paragraph 0057).
Regarding claim 16, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method for sleep training a user of a respiratory therapy system (see rejection of claim 1 above). Additionally, Arnold further discloses a system comprising:
a control system comprising one or more processors (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraph 0030);
and a memory having stored thereon machine readable instructions (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraph 0030); wherein the control system is coupled to the memory (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraph 0030), and the method of claim 1 is implemented when the machine executable instructions in the memory are executed by at least one of the one or more processors of the control system (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraph 0030).
Regarding claim 17, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method for sleep training (see rejection of claim 1 above). Additionally, Arnold further discloses a system for sleep training, the system comprising a control system configured to implement the method of claim 1 (e.g. paragraphs 0030, 0089).
Regarding claim 18, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method for sleep training a user of a respiratory therapy system (see rejection of claim 1 above). Additionally, Arnold further discloses a computer program product comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 1 (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraphs 0030, 0110).
Regarding claim 19, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the computer program product of claim 18 as discussed above, and Arnold further teaches wherein the computer program product is a non-transitory computer readable medium (e.g. Fig. 5; paragraphs 0030, 0110).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold and further in view of Weale and further in view of Levendowski and further in view of Neftci et al. (NPL reference, “Reinforcement learning in artificial and biological systems”, published March 2019, – Previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Arnold further teaches wherein the direction is based on an algorithm generated from crowd-sourced direction information (e.g. paragraphs 0124, 0161).
However, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski does not explicitly teach applying reinforcement learning to the algorithm for personalizing the direction specific to the user.
Neftci, in a same field of endeavor of learning models in biological systems, discloses applying reinforcement learning to the algorithm for personalizing the direction specific to the user (e.g. pg. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Arnold, Weale, and Levendowski to apply reinforcement learning to the algorithm for personalizing the direction specific to the user, as taught and suggested by Neftci, in order to improve the algorithm by maximizing the rewards and minimizing losses (Neftci, page 1).
Regarding claim 3, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski in view of Neftci teaches the method of claim 2 as discussed above, and Arnold further teaches wherein the reinforcement learning is based, at least in part, on which direction is determined to prevent or reduce sleep disordered breathing by the user based on second sleep quality data for the user during the one or more second sleep sessions (e.g. paragraphs 0095-0096).
Regarding claim 4, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski in view of Neftci teaches the method of claim 2 as discussed above, and Arnold further teaches wherein the reinforcement learning is based, at least in part, on which direction is determined to not wake the user, a bed partner of the user, or any combination thereof (e.g. paragraphs 091 and 0095).
16. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold and further in view of Weale and further in view of Levendowski and further in view of Xu et al. (US Pub.: 2016/0007914 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method of claim 1 as discussed above, and Arnold further teaches wherein the direction further includes one or more aural stimulations, one or more olfactory stimulations, or any combination mechanical, aural, or olfactory provided to the user effected, at least in part, by the wearable device (e.g. paragraphs 0183-0184).
However, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski does not teach an additional device to provide direction/stimulation by one or more devices associated with the user, one or more devices associated with a bed of the user, one or more devices located in an environment of the user, or any combination thereof.
Xu, in a same field of endeavor of sleep improvement methods, discloses an additional device to provide direction/stimulation by one or more devices associated with the user, one or more devices associated with a bed of the user, one or more devices located in an environment of the user, or any combination thereof (e.g. paragraphs 0023-0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Arnold, Weale, and Levendowski to include an additional device to provide direction/stimulation by one or more devices associated with the user, one or more devices associated with a bed of the user, one or more devices located in an environment of the user, or any combination thereof, as taught and suggested by Xu, in order to enhance the effectiveness and reliability of the stimulation.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold and further in view of Weale and further in view of Levendowski and further in view of Shouldice et al. (International Publication No.: WO 2021/220247 A1, – Previously Cited).
Regarding claim 12, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski teaches the method of claim 11 as discussed above. However, Arnold in view of Weale in view of Levendowski does not explicitly teach wherein the feedback provides information on presence of a bed partner, a weather event, a change in one or more medications, use of a drug, use of alcohol, energy level after sleep session, soreness during or after sleep session, or any combination thereof.
Shouldice, in a same field of endeavor of sleep improvement methods, discloses wherein the feedback provides information on presence of a bed partner, a weather event, a change in one or more medications, use of a drug, use of alcohol, energy level after sleep session, soreness during or after sleep session, or any combination thereof (e.g. paragraphs 0191, 0194 – alcohol use).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Arnold, Weale, and Levendowski to include wherein the feedback provides information on use of alcohol, as taught and suggested by Shouldice, for the purpose of providing a more tailored sleep report to the user on their sleep quality (Shouldice, paragraph 0194).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL TEHRANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0697. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights