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 .
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/18/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant makes the following arguments:
Applicant argues that the limitation “calculating a degree of similarity/separation” is a specific computer implemented process that cannot be performed solely by the human mind.
Applicant argues that the calculation provides a highly accurate evaluation of a drivers rest level, contributing to vehicle operational safety. Further arguing that, as a result, the claimed invention cannot be directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding point (i), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation “calculating a degree of similarity/separation” is a mental process and/or mathematical calculation that can be performed solely by the human mind. For example, a person of ordinary skill in the art could look at two graphs and determine/calculate a degree of similarity (or separation).
Regarding point (ii), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “calculating a degree of similarity/separation” is a mental process and/or mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2106.04(a)). Applicant is reminded that abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract idea, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). See Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir 2016).
For these reasons Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 3-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/18/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
While not necessarily unclear, it is conceivable that the following terms could be interpreted in ways other than the manner in which they are interpreted herein. Accordingly, Examiner seeks correction or confirmation of the following claim interpretations.
In re claim 1, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the limitation “information on an operation time” is being interpreted as information about the vehicle or driver collected while the vehicle is on (i.e., during operation).
In re claim 3, the sleep referenced in the limitation “determining a quality of the sleep during the sleep of the driver” is being interpreted as the “sleep outside the operation time of the driver” from claim 1. In other words, claim 3 is being interpreted as determining the quality of sleep of the driver that occurs outside of the operation time.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In re claim 7, the limitation “an arithmetic section” is not described in the specification. Examiner notes that applicant points to sections [0042], [0057], [0058], and [0059] as providing support for the amended limitations, however, none of the cited sections including information about “an arithmetic section”. As best understood it is not an arithmetic section that calculates “a degree of similarity” but rather the nap determination section (see application specification [0059]: “determining a degree of similarity by a nap determination section”).
In re claim 8, see above (In re claim 7). Additionally, as best understood, it is not an arithmetic section that calculates “a degree of separation”. As discussed in Applicant’s specification [0059] it is a “sleep determination section” that is responsible for “determining a degree of separation”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature must be shown or canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
In re claims 7 and 8, the feature “an arithmetic section”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental process of determining nap and sleep quality) without significantly more.
STEP 1:
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 8 are directed to a management method, a management method, a management system and a management system. Thus, they are directed to statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG 1:
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 recite the following limitations:
“calculating a degree of similarity of a heart-rate frequency distribution during a nap of a driver within an operation time relative to a heart-rate frequency distribution during sleep of the driver outside the operation time, and a degree of similarity of the heart-rate frequency distribution during the nap relative to a heart-rate frequency distribution during awakening of the driver” (mathematical calculation and/or mental process) (claim 1, 7)
“determining that a quality of the nap of the driver is high when the degree of similarity of the heart-rate frequency distribution during the nap relative to the heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep is higher than the degree of similarity of the heart rate frequency distribution during the nap relative to the heart-rate frequency distribution during the awakening” (observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, all of which are examples of mental processes-See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) (claim 1, 7)
“calculating a degree of separation between a heart-rate frequency distribution during sleep outside an operation time of a driver and a heart-rate frequency distribution during awakening of the driver;” (mathematical calculation and/or mental process) (claim 6, 8)
“determining that a quality of the sleep of the drive is higher as the degree of separation is larger.” (mental process, (observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion - See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) (claim 6, 8)
The above limitations are processes capable of being performed human mind (including observation, evaluations, judgements and opinions), under the broadest reasonable standard. As discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts do not distinguish between a mental processes performed entirely in the human mind and mental process that requires the use of a physical aid (i.e., pen and paper). The above limitations are nothing more than a manager using a combination of observational skills and mathematical concepts to determine whether not an individual is fully rested after sleeping.
STEP 2A, PRONG 2:
Claims 1, 6, 7, and 8 recite the following additional elements:
“an arithmetic section…”
“a nap determination section…”
“a sleep determination section…”
“a determination-result presentation section…”
“…presenting a result of the determining”
The additional elements “an arithmetic section”, “a nap determination section…”, “a sleep determination section…”, and “a determination-result presentation section” are examples of generic computer components that do not improve the function of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The generic computer components are simply used as tools to carry out the systems functions and thus, add no meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “…presenting a result of the determining” is an example of insignificant extra solution activity. Specifically, “presenting a result of the determining” is an example of using a generic computer component to output/display data. (STEP 2A, PRONG 2: NO).
STEP 2B:
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed in STEP 2A PRONG 2, the additional elements of the claim amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activities and generic computer components used to carry out the system’s functions. Additionally, viewing the limitations in combination show that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately. (STEP 2B: NO)
Regarding the dependent claims, claims 3-5 are either directed to steps that are also abstract or additional insignificant extra solution activities.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawachi et al. (US 2004/0243013).
In re claim 6, Kawachi discloses a management method (Fig. 3)
calculating a degree of separation (FIG. 6) between a heart-rate frequency distribution (210, 220: “frequency analysis” is performed on “heart beat signal”) outside an operation time of a driver (“frequency during sleep”) and a heart-rate frequency distribution (210, 220: “frequency analysis” is performed on “heart beat signal”) during awakening of the driver (“frequency during consciousness”);
determining that a quality of the sleep of the driver is higher as the degree of separation is larger ([0050]; FIG. 6: “increase in sleepiness” would cause the “frequency during consciousness” to shift to the left (indicated by arrow) leading to a smaller degree of separation)
In re claim 8, see above (In re claim 6).
Kawachi also discloses:
A management system comprising (FIG. 1):
an arithmetic section (part of ECU (20) responsible for S220: “frequency analysis (calculate spectrum signal)”)
a sleep determination section (part of ECU (20) responsible for S260, S270 and S280)
a determination-result presentation section (40) that presents a result of the determination [0044].
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawachi et al. (US 2004/0243013), in view of Nagai (US 2005/0246134), in view of Kirchner et al. (US 2012/0078318).
In re claim 1, Kawachi discloses a management method (FIG. 2), comprising:
calculating
a heart-rate frequency distribution (FIG. 6; 210, 220: “frequency analysis” is performed on “heartbeat signal”) during a nap (“frequency during sleep”) of a driver within an operation time [0037],
a degree of similarity (FIG. 6) of the heart-rate frequency distribution during the nap (“frequency during sleep”) relative to a heart-rate frequency distribution during awakening (“frequency during consciousness”), of the driver ;
presenting a result of the determining .
Kawachi does not disclose
calculating
a degree of similarity of a heart-rate frequency distribution during a nap of a driver within an operation time relative to a heart-rate frequency distribution during sleep of the driver outside the operation time and
determining that a quality of the nap of the driver is high when the degree of similarity of the heart-rate frequency distribution during the nap relative to the heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep is higher than the degree of similarity of the heart-rate frequency distribution during the nap relative to the heart-rate frequency distribution during the awakening.
Nagai discloses a method that like Kawachi is concerned with determining a driver’s sleepiness (abstract, [0039]: “driver’s sleepiness”). As discussed in Nagai, the driver’s sleepiness is evaluated, in part, by considering the drivers latest sleep quality, a standard deviation of a heart rate during the driver’s usual sleep, and a variation of the driver’s heart rate throughout the day [0038].
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 method of Kawachi to calculate a heart-rate frequency distribution during sleep of the drive outside the operation time, as disclosed by Nagai. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it is known in the art to use heart rate changes as a way to evaluate sleep quality as evidenced by Nagai (Nagai, [0038]).
Regarding the limitations “calculating a degree of similarity of a heart rate frequency distribution during a nap of a driver within an operation time relative to a heart-rate frequency distribution during sleep of the driver outside the operation time”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the proposed combination to combination to calculate a degree of similarity of a heart rate frequency distribution during a nap of a driver within an operation time relative to a heart rate frequency distribution during sleep of the driver outside the operation time, as taught by Kawachi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because such a technique is known in the art and the result of the modification (i.e., comparing a user’s heart rate during a nap to a user’s heart rate during sleep) is reasonably predictable.
Regarding the limitations “determining that a quality of the nap of the driver is high when the degree of similarity of the heart-rate frequency distribution during the nap relative to the heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep is higher than the degree of similarity of the heart-rate frequency distribution during the nap relative to the heart-rate frequency distribution during the awakening”
Kircher discloses a method that involves measuring a patient’s heart rate across a 24-hour period [0005]. As shown in Figs. 3-4, a difference (“Diff”) exists between the patient’s diurnal heart rate (“Day-base rate”, “Day-area”) and their nocturnal heart rate (“Night-Base rate”, “Night area”). As discussed in Kircher, knowledge of this difference makes it possible to identify deep sleep phases, REM sleep, naps or high times of stress [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to determine that a quality of the nap of the driver is high when the degree of similarity of the heart-rate frequency distribution during the nap relative to the heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep is higher than the degree of similarity of the heart-rate frequency distribution during the nap relative to the heart-rate frequency distribution during the awakening, as evidenced by Kircher. Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine that a nap with a heart rate frequency distribution that more closely mirrors the drivers heart rate distribution during sleep would be of higher quality compared to a nap with a heart rate frequency distribution that more closely mirrors the drivers heart rate distribution during awakening.
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields, see above (In re claim 1).
The proposed combination also yields (all mapping directed to Kawachi)
A management system comprising (FIG. 1):
an arithmetic section (part of ECU (20) responsible for S220: “frequency analysis (calculate spectrum signal)”)
a nap determination section (part of ECU (20) responsible for S260, S270 and S280; see proposed modification above (In re claim 1))
a determination-result presentation section (40) that presents a result of the determination [0044].
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawachi et al. (US 2004/0243013), in view of Nagai (US 2005/0246134), in view of Kirchner et al. (US 2012/0078318), in view of Russell et al. (US 2018/0256094).
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields (all mapping to Kawachi) determining a quality of the sleep (S200: “sleepiness level”) during the sleep of the driver based on
the heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep of the driver (“frequency during sleep”; also see proposed modification above (In re claim 1) regarding “heart rate frequency distribution during the sleep of the drive”) and
the heart rate frequency distribution during the awakening of the driver (“frequency during consciousness”); and
The proposed combination does not yield:
determining a rest level of the driver based on the quality of the nap and the quality of the sleep.
Russell discloses a method that like the proposed combination, uses heart rate information to assesses a sleep quality of a user [0023]. Russell further discloses determining a unified sleep quality score based on the user’s heart rate while sleeping, during the day, and during periods of relative inactivity [0023].
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 method of the proposed combination, to include determining a rest level of the driver based on the quality of the nap and the quality of the sleep, as taught by Russell. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would help determine if a driver is in a condition to be operating a vehicle.
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Kawachi), wherein, in the determining, it is determined that the quality of the sleep is higher as a difference between a peak heart rate in the heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep and a peak heart rate in the heart-rate frequency distribution during the awakening becomes larger ([0050]; FIG. 6: a driver with “an increase in sleepiness” has a “peak frequency during consciousness” that is shifted closer to “peak frequency during sleep”; Examiner notes that if a leftward shift indicates increased sleepiness, a rightward shift would indicated decreased sleepiness, that is, a higher sleep quality);
The proposed combination does not yield: wherein, in the determining, it is determined that the quality of the sleep is higher as a difference between a mean heart rate in the heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep and a mean heart rate in the heart-rate frequency distribution during the awakening becomes larger.
Kircher further discloses determining said difference by calculating a separation between the patient’s nocturnal mean and diurnal mean [0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the proposed combination to determine if a quality of sleep is higher by comparing a mean heart rate in the frequency distribution during sleep and a mean heart rate in the frequency distribution during the awakening, as taught by Kircher. One would have been motivated to make this modification because mean heart rate is a known parameter used to establish differences between a patient’s heart rate during sleep versus during the day, as evidenced by Kircher (Kircher, Figs. 3-4; [0018]).
In re claim 5, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Kawachi), in the determining, it is determined that the quality of the sleep is higher as a region in which a region surrounded by the heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep and a region surrounded by the heart-rate frequency distribution during the awakening do not overlap with each other becomes larger ([0050]; FIG. 6: a driver with “an increase in sleepiness” has a “peak frequency during consciousness” that is shifted closer to “peak frequency during sleep”; Examiner notes that if a leftward shift indicates increased sleepiness, a rightward shift would indicated decreased sleepiness)
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights