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 .
Applicant’s preliminary amendments filed on 08/26/2024 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are pending for examination. Claims 16-29 are cancelled.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless 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: “a preprocessing unit configured to calculate” and “an abnormality determination unit configured to store” in claim 9.
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. However, no adequate support(s) of the structures can be found in the specification.
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 § 112(b)
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 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from claim 9 is/are also rejected due to said dependency.
Claim limitations of “ a preprocessing unit configured to calculate a frequency feature amount by performing short-time Fourier transform on a load of the subject detected by a load sensor disposed at the bed; and an abnormality determination unit configured to store an abnormality determination model” in claim 9 invoke 35 USC 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 USC 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure(s) for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure(s) to the function. Paragraphs [0022] and [0127] describe “computer” and “the abnormality determination device 20 may be configured in a single physical server or may be configured on a cloud (cloud server), [0048]. The specification is devoid of adequate structure(s) of the “units” to perform the claimed functions. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the recited function(s). As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, these functions can be performed in any number of ways in hardware, software or a combination of the two. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one ordinary skill in the art would understand what structure(s) performs the function(s). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) second paragraph.
In regard to claim 15, the claim recites “a load sensor disposed at a bed”. It is unclear whether the load sensor and the bed are the same or different elements as recited in claim 9 with claim 15 depends. If they are the same, it is suggest “the load sensor disposed at the bed” should be set forth. Clarification is requested by amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 9-15 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 claim(s) contains 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from claim 9 is/are also rejected due to said dependency.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structures of a preprocessing unit and an abnormality determination unit to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one or ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed limitation.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions of abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-15 recite a method and a device/ system, which fall within one of statutory categories (i.e. process/ machine) (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One analysis: Claim 1 recites “creating teaching data, each of a plurality of types of feature amounts based on the detected load of the subject being associated with the abnormality state in the teaching data; creating a model for classifying a state of the subject as the abnormality state based on the plurality of types of feature amounts and determining at least one of the plurality of types of feature amounts as an explanatory variable based on the model, through supervised machine learning using the teaching data; and generating an abnormality determination model for determining the subject to be in the abnormality state based on the explanatory variable, through machine learning using the explanatory variable, wherein the plurality of types of feature amounts include a frequency feature amount calculated by performing short-time Fourier transform on the load of the subject”. The claims involve calculation/ determination of parameter(s) constitutes an abstract idea of mathematical relationships/ calculations and/or mental process, which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Mathematical Concepts) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two analysis: Claims 1 and 9 recite “a load sensor disposed at a bed”. Claim 9 recites “a preprocessing unit and an abnormality determination unit”. Claim 15 recites “a load sensor disposed at a bed” and “a display part ”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite a generic load sensor for collecting data and imply the use of a computer/ computing units for performing the abstract idea. Thus, there is no improvement or change in the function of the device (see at least MPEP 2106.05(a), (f) and (g)). And the detecting steps/ functions associated with the load sensor are considered as data gathering steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity. And/ or the abstract idea (mental process) is directed as being performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C) “(Step 2A Prong Two: YES).
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s), when considered separately and in combination, are associated with data gathering/ outputting steps of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and do not improve the functioning of a computer, e.g. an improvement in the application of the mathematical relationship in determining the parameter(s), which is, itself, an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claims merely cover the collection of data obtained from known and existing technology and then using the data to make a correlation/ determination (Step 2B: No). Dependent claims do not recite additional elements/ features and do not add significantly more (i.e. an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 further limit the judicial exception with parameters and/or are reciting elements that are well understood, routine, and conventional.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus claims 1-15 are ineligible. Similar analyses of training and using a trained machine learning model can be found in claim 2 of example 47 of the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to signal per se, which does not fall into the categories of “process”, “machine”, “manufacture” and “composition of matter”. Referring to claim 9, the claim recites the limitation “a preprocessing unit configured to calculate a frequency feature amount by performing short-time Fourier transform on a load of the subject detected by a load sensor disposed at the bed; and an abnormality determination unit configured to store an abnormality determination model”, which directs the claims to transitory embodiments, such as carrier waves encoded with the software steps. However, transitory forms of signals are not statutory (In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Beattie et al. (USPGPUB 2015/0157258) teaches methods and apparatuses for automatically identifying sleep apnea in a subject based on load cell signal data obtained from load cells coupled with one or more supports of a bed (abstract; Figs. 1 and 9) comprises detecting a load of the subject by a load sensor disposed at the bed (Figs. 1 and 9); extracting a plurality of types of feature amounts based on the detected load of the subject being associated with the abnormality state in the load data ([0042-0045]; block 912, Fig. 9); training and generating a model for classifying a state of the subject as the abnormality state based on the plurality of types of feature amounts (block 926, Fig. 9) and determining apnea severity parameter using the model (block 928, Fig., 9); wherein the plurality of types of feature amounts include a frequency feature amount calculated by a Fourier/ frequency analysis on the load data ([0029] and [0067]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights