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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-12, 14-19, and 22-23 are currently pending in this case and have been examined and addressed below. This communication is a Non-Final Rejection in response to the Claims filed on 07/25/2024.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite “computer-readable tangible storage medium”. Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation, this phrase can include both non-transient physical storage such as hardware and signals. Signals are not patent eligible subject matter. Examiner notes that Applicant can overcome this particular rejection by changing the phrase "computer-readable tangible storage medium" in independent Claim 23 to read "non-transitory computer-readable tangible storage medium".
Claims 1-12, 14-19, and 22-23 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-12 and 14-19 fall within the statutory category of an apparatus or system. Claim 22 falls within the statutory category of a process. Claim 23 does not fall within a statutory category, as rejected above, but for purposes of compact prosecution will be addressed here as well.
Step 2A, Prong One
As per Claims 1, 22, and 23, the limitations of deriving, from the received data, at least a first component representing accumulation of a load on the subject during the predetermined time period and a second component varying following the change, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The steps of deriving a first and second component are concepts performed including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements and combination of additional elements do not impose meaningful limits on the judicial exception. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – a system comprising a reception means, a derivation means, and an output means (Claim 1) and a computer-readable tangible storage medium storing a program executed in a computer including a processor unit (Claim 23). The system and computer-readable tangible storage medium in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also recite the additional elements of receiving data measured on the subject, the data including at least one of an autonomic nervous index, a body temperature related index, a blood pressure/blood flow related index, a sweating related index, or a mind-related index, the data including at least first data measured on the subject in the first state and second data measured on the subject in the second state and outputting at least one of the derived first component and second component which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, as in MPEP 2106.05(g), because the step of receiving data measured on the subject is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and the step of outputting the derived first and/or second component is mere data outputting in conjunction with the abstract idea, where the limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output). See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with the respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computing device to perform the method of the invention amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component. The system comprising a reception means, a derivation means, and an output means (Claim 1) and a computer-readable tangible storage medium storing a program executed in a computer including a processor unit (Claim 23) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as generic computer components by reciting the system as implemented as a server device which includes a storage unit and a processor unit (Specification, [0122]), and the computer-readable tangible storage medium implemented as memory or a database (Specification [0133]), which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea beyond mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims also include the additional elements of receiving data measured on the subject, the data including at least one of an autonomic nervous index, a body temperature related index, a blood pressure/blood flow related index, a sweating related index, or a mind-related index, the data including at least first data measured on the subject in the first state and second data measured on the subject in the second state and outputting at least one of the derived first component and second component which are both elements that are well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions in the field of data management because they are claimed at a high level of generality and include receiving or transmitting data as well as presenting data, which have been found to be well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions by the Court (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added) and (iv) Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves another technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 2-12 and 14-19 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea. For example, Claims 2 and 3 further specifies the step of deriving components by including applying a mathematical model to the received data which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception, because applying a mathematical algorithm to the abstract idea has been found to be mere instructions to apply the exception, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Claim 4 further limits or specifies the limitations of independent Claim 1 and is therefore directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 5 further limits or specifies the mathematical model of Claim 2 and is therefore directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 6 further limits or specifies the mathematical model of Claim 5 by describing the distribution used as one of a group of specific known mathematical distributions, which is still merely applying a mathematical algorithm to the abstract idea which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception similar to Claim 2. Claim 7 includes receiving change information defining a change from the first state to the second state which amounts to mere data gathering that is insignificant extra-solution activity which is well-understood, routine, and conventional similar to Claim 1. Additionally, claim 7 includes further describes the mathematical model which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception similar to Claim 2. Claims 8-12 further specify or limit the limitations of independent Claim 1 and is therefore directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 14 includes activating an alarm when the output first and/or second component exceeds a predetermined threshold, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity as mere data outputting similar to presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering of MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Claim 15 includes estimating or predicting an index of a load on the subject due to the change, based on at least the output first and/or second component which can be performed using human mental evaluation, observation, judgment, or opinion and therefore falls into the abstract grouping of a mental process. Claim 16 includes predicting future variations of the first and/or second component which also falls into the abstract grouping of a mental process. Claim 17 includes controlling an environment adjustment device based on at least the output first and/or second component which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception. The controlling step is recited at a high level of generality such that it has broad applicability to many fields of endeavor and therefore does not provide meaningful limitations that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more than the abstract idea, as per MPEP 2106.05(f)(3). Claim 18 includes determining an environment for increasing/decreasing the first and/or second component which amounts to a mental process, and also control the environment adjustment device to achieve the environment which is mere instructions to apply the exception for the same reasons as Claim 17. Claim 19 further specify or limit the limitations of independent Claim 1 and is therefore directed to the same abstract idea. Because the additional elements do not impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exception and the additional elements are well-understood, routine and conventional functionalities in the art, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means,” and are therefore being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: reception means that receives data, derivation means that derives, output means that outputs in claim 1; activation means that activates an alarm in Claim 14; estimation/prediction means that estimates or predicts an index in Claim 15; and control means that controls an environment in Claim 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification describes the reception means, derivation means, and output means to be implemented by the processor unit which is a single processor or plurality of processors ([0128]). The processor unit of the local device constitutes the activation means ([0136]). The processor unit of the environment adjustment device may constitute the control means ([0138]). The processor unit of the terminal device may constitute the estimation/prediction means ([0137]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(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 1, 9, 11-12, 14-19, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. (US 2015/0112159 A1), hereinafter He.
As per Claims 1, 22 and 23, He discloses a system for quantifying effects of a change in state during a predetermined time period regarding a subject, the change occurring during the predetermined time period including at least a change from a first state to a second state, the system comprising:
computer-readable tangible storage medium storing a program being executed in a computer including a processor unit ([0976] non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions);
a reception means ([0980]processing system encompassing all devices, machines for processing data, [0324] device worn by user acquires data) that receives data measured on the subject, the data including at least one of an autonomic nervous index based on a heart rate or heart rate variability, a body temperature related index, a blood pressure/blood flow related index, a sweating related index, or a mind-related index, the data including at least first data measured on the subject in the first state and second data measured on the subject in the second state (see Fig. 1B sensors which collect data from a subject including activity, heart rate, blood pressure, temperature; [0140] determine blood pressure, skin temperature, body temperature, heart rate, heart rate variability; [0788-0790] device worn on body of a person including sensors to monitor person, [0791] health parameters measured can include heart rate, blood pressure, [0306] deriving a score for the person related to health/sleep/fitness/stress for a particular location of the person);
a derivation means ([0980]processing system encompassing all devices, machines for processing data, [0325] device worn by user derives the score) that derives, from the received data, at least a first component representing accumulation of a load on the subject during the predetermined time period ([0791] derive parameters from the received/measured data, where the parameters include mood/stress level/sleep, [0811] determine stress based on sudden increase/decrease in measured value during a period of time, [0888-0890] determining stress level increase based on measured values over a period of time such as over a week) and a second component varying following the change (see Fig. 19B where the change in state of the patient from normal sleep to apnea is indicated by varying rate over time period); and
an output means ([0324] device worn by user displays the score, [0975]/[0978] system including output device) that outputs at least one of the derived first component and second component ([0306] derive a score associated with the state of the subject, [0331] state of subject indicated by calculated sleep score).
As per Claim 9, He discloses the system of Claim 1. He also teaches the state regarding the subject includes a state of an environment of the subject , and a change in the state of the environment of the subject is at least one of a change in temperature, a change in humidity, a change in radiation, a change in air quality, a change in airflow ([0227] environmental condition is temperature adjusted by a thermostat, [0935] sensors detect the ambient temperature, [0956] determining based on sensors that users are cold and adjust the temperature to result in a change in temperature).
As per Claim 11, He discloses the system of Claim 1. He also teaches the state regarding the subject includes a state of activity of the subject ([0306-0307]/[0331] determining score/state of a person related to the stat of sleep for the person), and a change in the state of the activity of the subject is at least one of a change in state regarding clothing, a change in state regarding working, a change in state regarding exercise, a change in state regarding sleep, a change in state regarding dietary, and a change in state regarding excretion ([0333] the score includes change in sleep, i.e. identification of sleep periods based on motion data, [0340-0341] change from sleep to awake identifies the sleep periods).
As per Claim 12, He discloses the system of Claim 1. He also teaches the change occurring during the predetermined time period further includes a change from the second state to a third state, and the data further includes third data measured on the subject in the third state ([0898] monitoring the vital signs of the patient during each step of progression, i.e. state of activity, where the state moves from resting, to sitting up in bed, to standing up while supported, to standing up unassisted, to walking where the vitals are collected and the measurements monitored during each state, i.e. the third state can be standing or walking).
As per Claim 14, He discloses the system of Claim 1. He also teaches an alarm activation means that activates an alarm when the output first component and/or second component exceeds a predetermined threshold ([0683] activate an alarm on the user worn device when first or second component, in this case the alertness level, falls below the threshold level).
As per Claim 15, He discloses the system of Claim 1. He also teaches an estimation/prediction means ([0980]processing system encompassing all devices) that estimates or predicts an index of a load on the subject due to the change, based on at least the output first component and/or second component ([0793] activity index is calculated where the index value indicates change in activity where sitting still has a lower than threshold value and running has a higher index value and the activity index is based on the data from motion sensors and measurable parameters).
As per Claim 16, He discloses the system of Claim 15. He also teaches predicting future variations of the first component and/or the second component ([0937] predict medical conditions in the future using monitored parameters based on the variation/trend in the measured data such as heart rate).
As per Claim 17, He discloses the system of Claim 1. He also teaches a control means that controls an environment adjustment device based on at least the output first component and/or second component ([0956] send message to a thermostat to control ambient temperature based on the determination that the person is cold, i.e. based on change in temperature).
As per Claim 18, He discloses the system of Claim 17. He also teaches the output first component and/or second component exceeds a predetermined threshold ([0256] determine the blood pressure is below a threshold level, [0273] vitals or activity level of user is below threshold), the control means is configured to: determine an environment for increasing or decreasing the first component and/or the second component ([0256] determine the user is to be excited by the entertainment device when vitals go below threshold, [0273] based on vitals below a threshold, determining the user is not adequately alert); and control the environment adjustment device to achieve the environment ([0256] entertainment device provides content to the user, [0274] cause the device to send activate an alarm when subject is not alert).
As per Claim 19, He discloses the system of Claim 1. He also teaches the first component is a component that monotonically increases or monotonically decreases in each state ([0937] determining state of hypertension or stroke when blood pressure is increasing over time), and the second component is a component that varies to approach a predetermined value in each state ([0848] determining state of a person based on heart rate data over a period of time where the data varies in spread and shows varying time between heart beats).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He (US 2015/0112159 A1), in view of Kan et al. (US 2014/0297600 A1), hereinafter Kan.
As per Claim 2, He discloses the system of Claim 1. He may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Kan: deriving the first component and the second component from the received data by applying, to the received data, a mathematical model including the first component and the second component as components on the assumption that the received data has the first component and the second component ([0006] receiving sleep data within a time interval including sleep-wake status, applying a mathematical fatigue model to determine a sleep fatigue level, [0049] receiving sleep data which includes sleep duration, work data, performance data, etc. and applying Bayesian data fusion techniques to the sleep data, i.e. mathematical model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present invention to combine the known concept of applying a mathematical model to the received data to derive data components from Kan with the known system of deriving and outputting components which indicate a change in state during a time period from He in order to use statistical probability to improve the accuracy of determining a user state (Kan [0004]).
As per Claim 3, He and Kan discloses the system of Claim 2. He also teaches the mathematical model further includes a third component that does not depend on the change as a component, and the derivation means derives the first component, the second component, and the third component from the received data ([0878] determining the user score is based on average/resting heart rate which is the heart rate during inactivity or the heart rate that does not depend on change, [0879] determining fitness state based on motion data, vitals such as heart rate, see Fig. 1B/[0788-0789] where data is all received data during monitoring of user to determine activity and heart rate).
He may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Kan: applying the mathematical model to the received data ([0049] receiving sleep data which includes sleep duration, work data, performance data, etc. and applying Bayesian data fusion techniques to the sleep data, i.e. mathematical model).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present invention to combine the known concept of applying a mathematical model to the received data to derive data components from Kan with the known system of deriving and outputting components which indicate a change in state during a time period from He in order to use statistical probability to improve the accuracy of determining a user state (Kan [0004]).
As per Claim 4, He and Kan discloses the system of Claim 3. He also teaches the third component is based on data measured on the subject or another subject during the predetermined time period in a case where the change does not exist ([0878] determining the user score is based on average/resting heart rate which is the heart rate during inactivity or the heart rate when no change occurs [0788-0789] based on the user data monitored over time).
As per Claim 5, He and Kan discloses the system of Claim 2. Kan also teaches for each component of the mathematical model, a time series variation of each component is expressed using a local variation that follows a predetermined distribution ([0089] for each sleep data source, .i.e. component, [0080] modeling the sleep data using a normal Gaussian distribution, [0091] converting the sleep interval data into sleep time series data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present invention to combine the known concept of express a time series variation of the data following a predetermined distribution from Kan with the known system of deriving and outputting components which indicate a change in state during a time period from He in order to use statistical probability to improve the accuracy of determining a user state (Kan [0004]).
As per Claim 6, He and Kan discloses the system of Claim 5. Kan also teaches the predetermined distribution includes at least one of a normal distribution, a Cauchy distribution, a binomial distribution, a Poisson distribution, a multinomial distribution, and a Bernoulli distribution ([0050] time series of data modeled by normal Gaussian distribution, other suitable distribution functions can be substituted for the normal distribution, [0088] using the normal distribution for determining transition from sleep and wake states in the sleep data, see Claim 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present invention to combine the known concept of express a time series variation of the data following a normal distribution from Kan with the known system of deriving and outputting components which indicate a change in state during a time period from He in order to use statistical probability to improve the accuracy of determining a user state (Kan [0004]).
As per Claim 7, He and Kan discloses the system of Claim 2. He also teaches receiving change information defining a change from the first state to the second state ([0482] determining a change in activity level or heart rate of person, i.e. a change in state).
He may not explicitly disclose the following which is taught by Kan: the second component of the mathematical model is modeled based on the change information ([0050] time series of data modeled by normal Gaussian distribution, other suitable distribution functions can be substituted for the normal distribution, [0088] using the normal distribution for determining transition from sleep and wake states in the sleep data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the present invention to combine the known concept of applying a mathematical model to the received data to derive data components based on change information from Kan with the known system of deriving and outputting components which indicate a change in state during a time period from He in order to use statistical probability to improve the accuracy of determining a user state (Kan [0004]).
As per Claim 8, He and Kan discloses the system of Claim 7. He also teaches the state regarding the subject includes a state of an environment of the subject ([0872] state of person is based on light levels during sleep), a change in the state of the environment of the subject is a periodic change or a change related to an event ([0872] the change in state is based on changes in measured light levels over the sleeping time which in this case is 7 hours and 52 minutes), and the change information includes a period of the change or a timing of the change (He [0872] the change information includes the change in light levels over the sleep time, [0874] the light levels are measured by optical sensors to be correlated with sleep quality based on motion sensors over time, see Fig. 20).
As per Claim 10, He and Kan discloses the system of Claim 7. He also teaches the state regarding the subject includes a state of activity of the subject, a change in the state of the activity of the subject is a periodic change or a change related to an event, and the change information includes a period of the change or a timing of the change ([0870-0871] state of person is based on activity level of the person during a period of time, and change in activity level from one time period to another neighboring time period).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Colley et al. (US 2015/0182129 A1) teaches receiving heart rate, heart rate variability, and activity data from sensors while monitoring a person and correlating the data to determine a stress level of the person.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Evangeline Barr whose telephone number is (571)272-0369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 am to 4:00 pm.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/EVANGELINE BARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682