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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In re claim 1, the limitation “…determining a quality of a nap of the driver based on heart-rate frequency distribution during sleep outside the operation time of the driver, heart-rate frequency distribution during awakening of the driver” should read “…determining a quality of a nap of the driver based on a heart-rate frequency distribution during sleep outside the operation time of the driver, a heart-rate frequency distribution during awakening of the driver”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 1-5, and 7 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.
In re claim 1, The limitation “a heart rate during the nap of the driver within the operation time”, specifically the limitation “a heart rate” raises a clarity concern when viewed in combination with Applicant’s specification. It is unclear why determining a quality of a nap of the driver would be based on a single “heart rate” value when the specification specifically states that the “nap determination section” (spec, FIG. 2: 106) relies on a heart-rate distribution during the nap of the driver in part to determine nap quality (spec, [0037, 0048]). For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation “a heart rate during the nap of the driver within the operation time” will be interpreted as written, however Examiner seeks additional understanding/clarify regarding the clarity conern described above.
Examiner notes that dependent claims 2, 3, 4, and 5 inherit the same deficiencies.
In re claim 7, see above (In re claim 1).
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 1-8 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:
“determining a quality of a nap” (observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, all of which are examples of mental processes- See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
“determining a quality of sleep (observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion, all of which are examples of mental processes-See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
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 observational skills to visually 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 operation information acquisition section…”
“a nap determination section…”
“a sleep determination section…”
“a determination-result presentation section…”
“acquiring information on an operation time…”
“…presenting a result of the determining”
The additional elements “an operation information acquisition 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 elements “acquiring information on an operation time…” and “…presenting a result of the determining” are insignificant extra solution activities. Specifically, “acquiring information on an operation time” is an example of data gathering and “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 2-5 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.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagai et al (US 2005/0246134).
In re claim 6, Nagai discloses a management method (FIG. 8), comprising:
acquiring *information on an operation time from a start of operation to an end of the operation of a driver (S100; FIG. 6: Examples listed in row titled “2nd VEHICLE INFO.”);
determining a quality of sleep ([0039]: “driver’s sleepiness”; ) during sleep of the driver *based on
heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep of the driver ([0035]: “standard division of the heart rate in a driver’s usual sleep”) and
heart-rate frequency distribution during awakening of the driver ([0035]: “variation of the driver’s heart rate throughout a day”); and
presenting a result of the determining (S170; [0077]: “displays the calculation result”; FIGS. 9E-9H).
*Regarding the limitation “information on an operation time” see Claim Interpretation section above.
In re claim 8, see above (In re claim 1).
Nagai also discloses
a management system (FIG. 1)
an operation information acquisition section (7, 9)
a sleep determination section (1; [0039]: “driver’s condition detector determines…the driver’s sleepiness”)
a determination-result presentation section (11, [0040]: “display”; examples of display shown in FIGS. 9E-9H)
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, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathissen et al. (US 2015/0251661) in view of Nagai et al. (US 2005/0246134).
In re claim 1, Mathissen discloses a management method (abstract) comprising:
acquiring information on an operation time (FIG. 1: 6, 4; [0024, 0018]; Regarding the limitation “information on an operation time” see Claim Interpretation section above) from a start of operation to an end of the operation of a driver (2);
determining a quality of a nap of the driver ([0027]: “current sleep depth”) based on,
heart-rate changes during awakening of the driver ([0025]; FIG. 3: “awake”), and
a heart rate (FIG. 3: “Heart Rate”) during the nap of the driver within the operation time ([0027]); and
Mathissen does not disclose
determining a quality of a nap of the driver based on, heart-rate frequency distribution during sleep outside the operation time of the driver and, heart-rate frequency distribution during awakening of the driver, and
presenting a result of the determining
Nagai discloses a method that like Mathissen is concerned with evaluating a driver’s condition (abstract, [0009]). As discussed in Nagai, a driver’s condition is evaluated by feeding operational information (7; FIG. 6: “2nd VEHICLE INFO.”) and secondary information into a driver condition detector unit (1). The secondary information includes 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 (9; [0038]). The driver condition detector unit uses the secondary and operational information to calculate the driver’s condition and presents results, like the graphs shown in FIG. 9E-9H, on a display [0077].
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 management method of Mathissen to also determine nap quality of the driver based on heart-rate frequency distribution during sleep outside the operation time of the driver. Given that Mathissen acknowledges a relationship between heart rate and sleep depth, one would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would make it possible to determine if the drivers heart rate distribution during a nap more closely matches the drivers heart rate distribution during sleep (i.e., higher nap quality) or the drivers heart rate distribution during the day (i.e., lower nap quality).
Regarding the limitation “presenting a result of the determining”. 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 management method taught by Mathissen to include presenting a result of the determining, as taught by Nagai. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have the ability to inform the driver that they may be in a condition that is unsuitable for driving (Nagai, [0006]).
Regarding the limitation “heart-rate frequency distribution during awakening”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the management method taught by Mathissen to use a heart rate frequency distribution during awakening in part to determine a patients nap quality. One would have been motivated to make this modification because a heart rate frequency distribution is a known analysis method. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose the analysis method that would best meet their needs.
In re claim 2, the proposed combination yields wherein, in the determining, the quality of the nap is determined based on whether the frequency distribution of the heart rate during a nap of the driver within the operation time is similar to the heart-rate frequency distribution during the awakening or the heart rate frequency distribution during the sleep (see above (In re claim 1)).
In re claim 7, see above (In re claim 1).
The proposed combination also yields (all mapping directed to Mathissen), a management system (FIG. 1).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathissen et al. (US 2015/0251661), in view of Nagai et al. (US 2005/0246134), in view of in view of Russell et al. (US 2018/0256094).
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields (all mapping to Nagai) determining a quality of the sleep ([0039]: “driver’s sleepiness”) during the sleep of the driver based on
the heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep of the driver ([0035]: “standard division of the heart rate in a driver’s usual sleep”) and
the heart rate frequency distribution during the awakening of the driver ([0035]: “variation of the driver’s heart rate throughout a day; Regarding the limitation “frequency distribution” see paragraph 38 above); 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 Nagai), wherein, in the determining, it is determined that the quality of 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 (see above (In re claim 1), FIG. 2A; [0042, 0043]).
As discussed above the proposed combination is capable of evaluating sleep quality by comparing the driver’s heart-rate frequency distribution during the day to the driver’s heart rate frequency distribution during sleep (see above (In re claim 1)). Examiner asserts that because the proposed combination is capable of making such a comparison, it would also be capable of determining “higher quality sleep”. Examiner notes that claim 4 does not actually require or discuss calculating “a mean heart rate”. The claim simply states that a higher quality sleep is indicated by a larger difference between the drivers mean heart rate during sleep and the drivers mean heart rate the day, which as discussed above would be recognized by the proposed combination.
In re claim 5, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Nagai) in the determining, it is determined that the quality of the sleep is higher as a space between the heart-rate frequency distribution during the sleep and the heart-rate frequency distribution during the awakening becomes larger (see above (In re claim 1); FIG. 2A; [0042, 0043] ).
The proposed combination does not yield, 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.
Examiner asserts that for substantially the same reasons as discussed above (In re claim 4) the proposed combination would be able to determine that sleep quality is higher as the space between the heart rate frequency distribution during the sleep and the heart rate frequency during the awakening becomes larger. Additionally, Examiner notes that claim 5 does not require or discuss calculating or determining “a region”. The claim simply states that a higher quality sleep is indicated by a larger gap between the heart rate frequency distribution during sleep and the heart rate frequency distribution during awakening, which as discussed above, the proposed combination would be capable of determining.
Regarding the limitation “a region” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was made to characterize the spaces both between and surrounding the frequency distributions as “a region”. One would have been motivated to make this modification because it is a known mathematical way to characterize such data. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose a characterization method that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield, “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”.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Iizuka et al. (JP 2009213707) discloses a system capable of determining a driver’s degree of sleepiness, and if desired ensuring that the driver takes a proper nap [0005]. Iizuka further discloses using a user’s heart rate to monitor their sleep depth [0009, 0010].
Yasuchi (US 2004/0046666) discloses a device that measures a driver’s fatigue level using a heart rate signal (FIG. 1; [0033]).
Kawachi et al. (US 2004/0243013) discloses a device that measures a sleepiness level of a driver by analyzing a frequency spectrum of a heart rate signal (abstract). As discussed in [0057], a lower peak frequency indicates a higher sleepiness level since the heart rate of the driver decreases as the sleepiness level increases (FIG. 6).
Contact
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