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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 09/11/2024.
Claims 1, 3 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 4 has been added.
Claims 1-4 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continuity/Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 11 March 2022. A certified copy of application JP 2022-037715 was received by USPTO on 25 March 2025. Status of this application as a 371 of PCT/JP2023/002053, filed 24 January 2023, is acknowledged. As such, a priority date of 11 March 2022 has been given to this application.
IDS
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/25 have been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: The preambles of Claims 2-4 all recite “The a system”. Examiner interprets the instance of “a” in each preamble to be a typographical error and is interpreting the preambles to recite “The system”. Appropriate correction is required.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for recording a result of a response to questionnaire in Database A / B” and “means for recording a result of the measurement in the database A / B” in claim 1.
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.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a means for monitoring a sleep duration and time zone of a day; a means for monitoring sleep quality and a daytime function; a means for selecting candidate causes based on the type of the sleep problem; a means for making a final determination of the causes of the sleep problem; a means for prioritizing and creating countermeasures for the finally determined causes in claim 1. Per claim language and para. [0051] of specification, these “means” are being interpreted as software modules being executed by a processing program of the server. Under 112(f), a server is considered to be a hardware structural component.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
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.
In Claim 1, claim limitations “means for recording a result of a response to questionnaire in Database A / B” and “means for recording a result of the measurement in the database A / B” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only reiterates the claim language, e.g., “means for recording a result of the measurement” (see paras. [0036]-[0037]). The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would know the structure of the claimed “means” for performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Dependent claims 2-4 are subsequently rejected as they inherit the deficiencies of parent claim 1. For purposes of examination, the “means for recording” are interpreted as hardware/software implemented on a computer system.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1-4 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 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.
As described above, the disclosure does not provide sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions of recording a result of a response to questionnaire in Database A / B and recording a result of the measurement in the database A / B. The specification only reiterates the claim language, e.g., paras. [0036]-[0037]. The specification does not demonstrate that the applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Dependent claims 2-4 are subsequently rejected as they inherit the deficiencies of parent 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-4 are drawn to a system, which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-4 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 1 recites implementing the steps of:
monitoring a sleep duration and time zone of a day using any of the following: providing a questionnaire to the user and recording a result of a response to the questionnaire; measuring a sleep state of the user and recording a result of the measurement,
monitoring sleep quality and a daytime function by performing any of the following: providing a questionnaire to the user and recording a result of a response to the questionnaire; measuring a sleep state of the user and recording a result of the measurement,
identifying which type of the sleep state of the user is when the sleep state meets a predetermined criterion, based on recorded information and the predetermined criterion: a difficulty type in falling asleep, a difficulty type in maintaining sleep, or an excessive daytime sleepiness type; and provisionally identifying the causes of the problem based on a table that stores probable causes of each of the difficulty type in falling asleep, the difficulty type in maintaining sleep, and the excessive daytime sleepiness type,
making a final determination of whether the provisionally identified causes are true or not based on data on a result of a response to an additionally given questionnaire and predetermined criterion, and
prioritizing contents of lifestyle to be improved, based on a lifestyle standardized coefficient table created in advance based on the causes of the problem that have been finally determined to be true and standardized coefficients of an impact of the lifestyle on the finally determined causes of the problem, in descending order of the standardized coefficients.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Identifying causes of a user’s sleep problem by analyzing collected data and creating remedies for the user’s sleep problem are personal behaviors that may be performed by a healthcare provider.
The above claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
The independent claims additionally recite:
a user terminal and/or an administrator terminal
a server that operates the system
a database built in the server
a processing program that is downloaded to the server and operates the system, wherein the processing program causes the server to perform each of processes by a means for selecting candidate causes based on the type of the sleep problem; by a means for making a final determination of the causes of the sleep problem; and by a means for prioritizing and creating countermeasures for the finally determined causes as implementing the steps of the abstract idea
a means for monitoring a sleep duration and time zone of a day as implementing any of the following: providing a questionnaire to the user and recording a result of a response to the questionnaire; measuring a sleep state of the user recording a result of the measurement;
a means for displaying / user terminal as implementing the step of providing a questionnaire to the user
database A / database B as the locations where measurements are recorded
a device that is worn by the user as implementing the step of measuring a sleep state of the user,
a device that is attached to bedding as implementing the step of measuring a sleep state of the user,
a device that measures the sleep state of the user by using a video system as implementing the step of measuring a sleep state of the user,
a means for recording a result of the measurement in the database A / database B;
a means for monitoring sleep quality and a daytime function as implementing any of the following: providing a questionnaire to the user and recording a result of a response to the questionnaire; measuring a sleep state of the user recording a result of the measurement;
the means for selecting candidate causes based on the type of the sleep problem as implementing the step of identifying which type of the sleep state of the user is when the sleep state meets a predetermined criterion, based on information recorded and the predetermined criterion
the means for making a final determination of the causes of the sleep problem as implementing the step of making a final determination of whether the provisionally identified causes are true or not based on data on a result of a response to an additionally given questionnaire and predetermined criterion
the means for prioritizing and creating countermeasures for the finally determined causes as implementing the step of prioritizing contents of lifestyle to be improved
The broad recitation of general purpose computing elements at a high level of generality only amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools.
Regarding the user/administrator terminal, per para. [0053] this is understood to be a PC or smartphone. No particulars are provided; therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing device functioning in its ordinary capacity.
Regarding the server that operates the system, the specification does not appear to disclose any particulars or structural description of the server; therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing device functioning in its ordinary capacity.
Regarding the database built in the server, the specification does not appear to disclose any particulars or structural description of the database; therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing element functioning in its ordinary capacity, e.g., storing data in an electronic format.
Regarding the processing program that is downloaded to the server and operates the system, wherein the processing program causes the server to perform each of processes by a means for selecting candidate causes based on the type of the sleep problem; by a means for making a final determination of the causes of the sleep problem; and by a means for prioritizing and creating countermeasures for the finally determined causes, the specification does not appear to disclose any particulars or structural descriptions; therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing element functioning in its ordinary capacity and amounts to applying the abstract idea on a computer (e.g., [0035] discloses that the processing program causes the server to perform processes such as selecting candidate causes, making final determination of sleep problem, and prioritizing/creating methods for addressing determined causes).
Regarding the device that is worn by the user, per para. [0061], this is understood to be one of numerous devices. The wearable devices are only disclosed at a very high level of generality and no particulars of the individual devices are given. Therefore, recitation of this element amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, e.g., using a known device functioning in its ordinary capacity to measure a sleep state of the user.
Regarding the device that is attached to bedding, per para. [0062], this is understood to be one of numerous devices. The devices attached to bedding are only disclosed at a very high level of generality and no particulars of the individual devices are given. Therefore, recitation of this element amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, e.g., using a known device functioning in its ordinary capacity to measure a sleep state of the user.
Regarding the device that measures the sleep state of the user by using a video system, per para. [0063], this is understood to be one of numerous devices. The devices are only disclosed at a very high level of generality and no particulars of the individual devices are given. Therefore, recitation of this element amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, e.g., using a known device functioning in its ordinary capacity to measure a sleep state of the user.
Regarding means for recording a result of the measurement in the database A / database B, no particulars of this element appear to be disclosed in the specification. The specification only reiterates the claim language. Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing device and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea.
Regarding a means for monitoring a sleep duration and time zone of a day, a means for monitoring sleep quality and a daytime function, the means for selecting candidate causes based on the type of the sleep problem the means for making a final determination of the causes of the sleep problem the means for prioritizing and creating countermeasures for the finally determined causes, per para. [0051], these are understood to be hardware/software installed and operating on the management server. No particulars/structural components are described; therefore, these elements are given their broadest reasonable interpretation as general purpose computing elements used to apply the abstract idea on a general purpose computing device, and amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer.
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 1 additionally recites
transmitting the contents to the user terminal and/or the administrator terminal or outputting the contents in a form of a printed paper medium.
This step only amounts to insignificant application of the abstract idea, as it only amounts to outputting the results after performance of the abstract idea.
These elements in sections A. and B. above are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claim 1 only recites the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Likewise, as explained above, the step of transmitting the contents to the user terminal and/or the administrator terminal or outputting the contents in a form of a printed paper medium, only amounts to insignificant application of the abstract idea.
C. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.0S(d)
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity the elements in Section B above constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The step of transmitting the contents to the user terminal and/or the administrator terminal or outputting the contents in a form of a printed paper medium only amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims.
Claim 2 recites limitations pertaining to determining, based on the recorded information and predefined information on a sleep disorder that requires medical treatment, that there is a strong suspicion that the user suffers from the sleep disorder that requires medical treatment, sending to the user and/or the administrator in a form of a printed paper medium, information requiring diagnosis of the user's disorders and/or a draft of information submission form for medical treatment, which are also certain methods of organizing human activities including managing personal behaviors, as determining a strong suspicion (likelihood) of the user suffering from a sleep disorder that requires medical treatment and subsequently notifying the user and/or an administrator with information requiring diagnosis of the user’s disorders or submission for medical treatment are personal behaviors that may be performed by a person. Claim 2 also recites the additional elements of processing program, databases, program, server, user/administrator terminal. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.05(f). These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 and Claim 4 recite limitations pertaining to, the processing program has an API function for calling a series of online processes from another systems on a network and the server transmitting, to the user terminal and/or the administrator terminal, at least one of the following pieces of information as output information: contents of additional question items, causes of suspected sleep problems, remedies or weighted remedies, lectures or other contents given with the aid of documents, images, and videos tagged to the remedies or the weighted remedies, and a scored sleep state. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1, these additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer. Regarding the API function for calling a series of online processes from another system on a network, this function is only disclosed at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f). Using a server and terminal to provide and display information to a user similarly amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. These limitations are not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as they include all of the limitations of claim 1. The additional recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea. Beyond the limitations which recite the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements consistent with those identified above with respect to the independent claims which encompass adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4 recite additional subject matter which amounts to additional elements consistent with those identified in the analysis of Claim 1 above. As discussed above with respect to Claim 1 and integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, recitation of these additional elements only amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. 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 a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent claims 2-4, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 1-4 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim (US Publication 20170128003A1) in view of Vakulin et. al. (US Publication 20210327584A1), further in view of Lawlor et. al. (US Publication 20220133221A1), and further in view of Hogg (US Publication 20200252423A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lim discloses: A system that assists in remedying a sleep problem wherein the system identifies causes of a sleep problem of a user by using a computer system ([0059] teaching on a system and method for sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment; integrate diagnostic and therapeutic tools to assess and treat a user’s sleep disorder via mobile platform), automatically creates remedies for the sleep problem ([0079] teaches on treatment module 220 which suggests sleep disorder treatments for the user, e.g., behavioral therapies, sleep restriction therapy, etc.), and provides the user and/or an administrator with the created remedies ([0080]-[0092] provide various examples of sleep remedies being provided to the user), the system being characterized by comprising: a user terminal and/or an administrator terminal (Lim [0005], [0070] teach on a mobile software app installed and executed on a mobile device such as a smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc.); a server that operates the system ([0110] teaches on a host site including the sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment system including a web server which has a web interface for users to interact with);
a database built in the server ([0071] teaches on the sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment system having a database used for data storage of information related to the sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment of users, sleep logs of users, communications, and storage of “a variety of data in support of the sleep disorder and treatment system”), a processing program that is downloaded to the server and operates the system ([0073] teaches on system architecture including modules implemented as software components, which is interpreted as the processing program); a means for monitoring a sleep duration ([0105] teaches on sleep logs which include how long the user slept per night) and time zone of a day ([0089] teaches on a user being prompted to set their desired wake-up time and how many hours of sleep a night – e.g., 6 hours/night or 7 hours/night; sleeping 6-7 hours “per night” is interpreted as “time zone of a day” per applicant’s specification which gives examples of “time zone” as “morning time zone” and “afternoon time zone”, therefore, a prompt gathering input of a user’s desire for 6-7 hours of sleep per night is interpreted as “means” for monitoring “time zone of a day” with the time zone being night); and a means for monitoring sleep quality ([0077] teaches on a series of questionnaires to prompt the user for questions related to sleep habits such as bedtime, medications, etc. – important questions that can affect the quality of sleep; based on the user’s input, the sleep disorder diagnostic module can determine whether the user is “showing signs or symptoms of common disorders” which is interpreted as “sleep quality”; also, [0134] teaches on using sleep metering system and/or sleep disorder diagnostic module to capture raw physical sensor data while the subject sleeps; the sensor data can be used to generate a “sleep efficiency score” which is interpreted as an indication of sleep quality per [0091]) and a daytime function ([0078] teaches on the sleep disorder diagnostic module prompting/presenting a user with an Epworth Sleepiness Scale which is intended to assess daytime sleepiness that is measured using a questionnaire – daytime sleepiness is interpreted as being an indication of the user’s daytime function), wherein the processing program causes the server to perform each of processes ([0073] teaches on modules implemented as software components within the sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment system) by a means for selecting candidate causes based on the type of the sleep problem; ; and by a means for creating countermeasures for the finally determined causes ([0075] teaches on the sleep disorder diagnostic module using the questionnaires/related responses to determine whether a particular treatment is needed; if treatment is indicated, the sleep disorder treatment module can recommend a type of treatment), the means for monitoring a sleep duration and time zone of a day is any of the following: a means for displaying a questionnaire to the user on the user terminal and recording a result of a response to the questionnaire in a database A (see Fig. 11 / para. [0090], asking user to select a time when they get in/out of bed and when they actually fell asleep and woke up, the questionnaire is provided via the user’s mobile app; per [0071], the sleep logs of users are stored in database 103 which is interpreted as “means for recording a result” in the database; [0089] teaches on a user being prompted to set their desired wake-up time and how many hours of sleep a night – e.g., 6 hours/night or 7 hours/night; sleeping 6-7 hours “per night” is interpreted as “time zone of a day” per applicant’s specification which gives examples of “time zone” as “morning time zone” and “afternoon time zone”, therefore, a prompt gathering input of a user’s desire for 6-7 hours of sleep per night is interpreted as “means” for monitoring “time zone of a day” with the time zone being night); a device that is worn by the user and measures a sleep state of the user, and a means for recording a result of the measurement in the database A; a device that is attached to bedding and measures the sleep state of the user, and a means for recording a result of the measurement in the database A; and a device that measures the sleep state of the user by using a video system, and a means for recording a result of the measurement in the database A (per claim construction “any one of the following”, only one of the former limitations are required), the means for monitoring sleep quality and a daytime function is any of the following: a means for displaying a questionnaire to the user on the user terminal and recording a result of a response to the questionnaire in a database B ([0078] teaches on prompting a user to answer the Epworth Sleepiness Scale which is a short questionnaire to assess daytime sleepiness (“daytime function”) of the user; the questionnaire is interpreted as being delivered via the user terminal (smartphone) per Fig. 8; per [0071], the database 103 is used to store information related to sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment which is interpreted as including questionnaire results, storing data in the database is interpreted as “means for recording a result” in the database); a device that is worn by the user and measures the sleep state of the user ([0134] teaches on an example of using a sensor of sleep metering system 500 to capture raw sensor data used to determine sleep efficiency; per [0128], the sleep metering system is a wearable device worn on the user’s chest), and a means for recording a result of the measurement in the database B (per [0118] the recorded sensor data may be stored in a cloud data storage device 103); a device that is attached to the bedding and measures the sleep state of the user, and a means for recording a result of the measurement in the database B; and a device that measures the sleep state of the user by using a video system, and a means for recording a result of the measurement in the database B (per claim construction “any one of the following”, only one of the former limitations are required), the means for selecting candidate causes based on the type of the sleep problem is a means for identifying which type of the sleep state of the user is when the sleep state meets a predetermined criterion ([0075] teaches on the sleep disorder diagnostic module processing the user responses to suggest a “possible sleep disorder” or “possible sleep-related breathing problem” which are interpreted as “candidate causes” based on the type of sleep problem, where [0071] teaches on the database 103 storing information related to sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment of users, sleep logs, etc.), based on information recorded in the databases A and B (where [0071] teaches on the database 103 storing information related to sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment of users, sleep logs, etc.) and the predetermined criterion: a difficulty type in falling asleep ([0105] teaches on tracking how long the user was awake at night), a difficulty type in maintaining sleep ([105] teaches on the sleep log tracking number of awakenings during the night), or an excessive daytime sleepiness type ([0078] teaches on using the Epworth Sleepiness Scale to assess daytime sleepiness); and provisionally identifying the causes of the problem based on a table that stores in advance probable causes of each of the difficulty type in falling asleep, the difficulty type in maintaining sleep, and the excessive daytime sleepiness type ([0075] teaches on the sleep disorder diagnostic module 210 receiving user input on various questionnaires to determine whether the user is showing signs or symptoms of common sleep disorders; [0071] teaches on database 103 storing information related to sleep disorder diagnosis; Examiner submits that a “table that stores” probable causes is simply a means of storing data electronically and as such interprets the database to read on claim language; per Fig. 1 the database 103 and sleep disorder diagnostic module are both within system 110; [0078] teaching on, among the questionnaires presented to the user, are Epworth sleepiness scale (reads on “excessive daytime sleepiness”; [0105] teaches on tracking number of awakenings per night and how long user was awake; per [0075] the sleep disorder diagnostic module uses the information gathered to suggest a possible sleep disorder or sleep-related breathing problem based on the information provided by the user – suggesting a possible disorder is interpreted as “provisionally identifying the causes” of the user’s sleeping problem, e.g., suggesting an underlying disorder), the means for making a final determination of the causes of the sleep problem ([0096] and Figs. 14-16 teach on an algorithm for guiding the user through a process of sleep disorder diagnostic assessment using the sleep disorder diagnostic and treatment modules) , and the means for creating countermeasures for the finally determined causes is a means for [providing] contents of lifestyle to be improved ([0079] teaches on using the sleep diagnosis and treatment system’s sleep disorder treatment module to suggest/select, for the particular sleep disorder treatment based on user responses captured/processed (sleep diagnosis), sleep disorder therapies/treatments “1) behavioral therapies, 2) stimulus control therapy (SCT), 3) sleep restriction therapy (SRT), sleep logs, and sleep efficiency assessments, and 4) soundscapes”; 1-4 are interpreted as “countermeasures” for the determined causes; [0080] teaches on behavior therapies for changing a person’s behavior in order to treat a condition and {0081] teaches on addressing negative emotions such as anxiety or depression to address the root causes of unhealthy behavior and habits – interpreted as “contents of lifestyle to be improved”), , and transmitting the contents to the user terminal and/or the administrator terminal ([0107] teaches on a user setting up an account with the sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment system; the user can interact with the system to receive sleep disorder diagnosis and treatment; [0079]-[0081] teach on the system suggesting particular sleep disorder treatments based on data captured and processed by the sleep diagnostic module, including but not limited to, behavioral therapies; CBT is a form of behavioral therapies and the sleep disorder treatment module can guide the user through various CBT treatments based on the assessment of their condition as determined by the diagnostic module), or outputting the contents in a form of a printed paper medium (per claim construction “or”, this limitation is not required).
Lim does not disclose, but Vakulin, which is directed to decision support software for sleep disorder identification, teaches: a means for making a final determination of the causes of the sleep problem / the means for making a final determination of the causes of the sleep problem is a means for making a final determination of whether the provisionally identified causes are true or not based on data on a result of a response to an additionally given questionnaire and predetermined criterion (Paras. [0188], [0189]; See Fig. 6A which shows a representation of the identified sleep problems of a user; 6B shows a screen allowing an end user to provide feedback in relation to one or more identified sleep disorders on the display; Fig. 6B shows questionnaire “Thoughts?” and “Do you agree with the sleep problem(s) identified for you?” in which user can select a thumbs up or thumbs down – whether or not the user selects thumbs up or thumbs down is interpreted as “predetermined criterion” that make the determination of whether or not the provisionally identified cause is true based on the result of user questionnaire);
a means for prioritizing and creating countermeasures for the finally determined causes / the means for prioritizing and creating countermeasures for the finally determined causes is a means for prioritizing contents of lifestyle to be improved ([0137] teaches on the recommendation prioritization module (“means for prioritizing”) that performs prioritization of recommendations generated by the recommendations module, which generates recommendations for identifying sleep problems based on user input), based on a table created in advance based on the causes of the problem that have been finally determined to be true ([0036] teaches on determining a priority of one or more recommendations based on the identified one or more sleep disorder user data – interpreted as cause of the problem determined to be true; [0177] teaches on users providing feedback to update the prioritization module; modifiable weights associated with first and second recommendation branches may be given; Examiner interprets a “table” to be an electronic means of storing/maintaining/retrieving data, e.g., the prioritization module which maintains weights associated with different recommendation branches); and an impact of the lifestyle on the finally determined causes of the problem ([0212]-[0214] teaches on the decision support system also taking into account various other aspects of the user’s life, e.g., bed time/wake up time/napping habits, bedroom conditions such as too hot/cold, too noisy, too bright, and smoking and drinking habits of the user, e.g., how often the user drinks caffeinated or alcoholic beverages or smokes tobacco – impacts of a lifestyle (caffeine, alcohol, naps) on a sleep problem; [0095] teaches on determining a priority of each recommendation)
Therefore, 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 teachings of Lim with these teachings of Vakulin to incorporate a means of making a final determination of whether provisionally identified causes are true by providing a questionnaire to the user, with the motivation of enabling the user to provide feedback in relation to the identified sleep disorder (Vakulin [0189]); and to prioritize countermeasures for lifestyle to be improved based on the causes of the problem, which have an impact on the lifestyle of the user, because user lifestyle choices (e.g., alcohol, caffeine, nicotine) can have an impact on user alertness and result in difficulty falling asleep (Vakulin [0214]).
Lim/Vakulin do not explicitly teach, but Lawlor, which is directed to systems and methods for analyzing, managing and improving sleep, teaches:
lifestyle standardized coefficients [affecting a user’s sleep that can be improved] ([0054] teaches on a user’s routines and decisions through the day (“lifestyle” content) are monitored and scored with a weighted multiplier (“standardized coefficient”) according to the particular activity).
Therefore, 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 combined teachings of Lim/Vakulin with these teachings of Lawlor, to use standardized coefficients associated with a sleep problem of a user associated with their lifestyle, because various factors in the user’s lifestyle such as exercise, activities and food intake impact the user’s sleepiness and sleep,