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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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.
Claims 1-7 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. Claim 1 recites “a middle layer, bonded with and covering the surface of the bottom layer, deployed with a soft and flexible radar antenna, to detect and record the life information of the user…” See MPEP 2163 I and particularly section A for details regarding lack of written description support / possession for original claims. Here, the claim covers a broad genus of “life information of the user,” whereas the original disclosure addresses only, at best, breathing and heartbeat detection. Further, the original disclosure does not provide adequate support for the function at issue being performed by either the middle layer or the antenna which is what the claim, as written, requires (see also the indefiniteness rejection below).
The recitation in claim 1 of “more than one force-sensitive resistor, to detect and record the physiological information of the user” is similarly problematic, suffering from the same issues as described above. The disclosure appears to make clear that the only examples related to “physiological information of the user” provided are presence / absence of the user. However, the claim covers far beyond that and the specification purports that the apparatus is capable of “pairing with a mobile device to record all life and physiological information of the user” as a bold assertion without supportive description in the original disclosure for anything beyond detecting a user’s presence. The broad genus recitation of the entire breadth of “physiological information of the user” is simply without adequate written description support.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “more than one force-sensitive resistor, to detect and record the physiological information of the user.” It does not appear that there is adequate written description support / possession of more than one resister which can “detect and record the physiological information of the user.” Resistors restrict electrical current flow. They do not in and of themselves detect and record information, particularly physiological information of the user.
Claims 1-7 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 recites “a middle layer, bonded with and covering the surface of the bottom layer, deployed with a soft and flexible radar antenna, to detect and record the life information of the user…” The specification merely includes examples “such as breathing and heartbeat,” but fails to properly define the scope of the recitation. It is not clear what “the life information of the user” encompasses and it is not clear how the middle layer or the soft and flexible radar antenna (see indefiniteness rejection below) accomplish the claimed function of “to detect and record the life information of the user.” The original disclosure is not enabling for the full scope of the recitation. While, arguably, support may be present for breathing and heartbeat detection, the original disclosure is not enabling for the remainder of the scope. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to go beyond the suggested breathing and heartbeat examples and the original disclosure is not commensurate in scope with these claims. “Life information of the user” could include, for example, brainwave detection, movement of appendages, eye movement, swallowing, temperature, etc. Furthermore, there is no enabling disclosure with regard to how a middle layer or a radar antenna could even perform the function of detecting and recording.
The recitation in claim 1 of “more than one force-sensitive resistor, to detect and record the physiological information of the user” is similarly problematic, suffering from the same issues as described above. The disclosure appears to make clear that the only examples related to “physiological information of the user” provided are presence / absence of the user. However, the claim covers far beyond that and the specification purports that the apparatus is capable of “pairing with a mobile device to record all life and physiological information of the user” as a bold assertion without any enabling description in the original disclosure for anything beyond detecting a user’s presence. The broad genus recitation of the entire breadth of “physiological information of the user” is simply not enabled.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “more than one force-sensitive resistor, to detect and record the physiological information of the user.” The disclosure is non-enabling with regard to resisters which “detect and record the physiological information of the user.” Resistors restrict electrical current flow. They do not in and of themselves detect and record information, particularly physiological information of the user. Based upon the original disclosure, one would not be able to make or use an invention with the quoted limitation at issue.
With regard to the Wands factors, the recitation at issue is extremely broad, the nature of the invention is highly technical and lacking specific details in the original disclosure, the prior art is highly technical as is the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, and there is minimal direction provided by the inventor – solely with regard to minimal, specific examples which represent only a small subset of the breadth of the claims, and it would require an unreasonable amount of experimentation to make or use an invention with the claim scope at issue – far beyond what is contemplated in the specification or drawings.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a bottom layer, to provide an elastic support.” As written, it would appear that “an elastic support” is separate structure. However, this conflicts with the specification which makes clear that the bottom layer is the structure and the function of it is to elastically support a user. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “soft and flexible” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a middle layer, bonded with and covering the surface of the bottom layer, deployed with a soft and flexible radar antenna, to detect and record the life information of the user.” However, it is unclear as written whether the soft and flexible radar antenna is performing the function of “to detect and record life information of the user” or whether the middle layer is performing the function. Furthermore, it is unclear as to how a middle layer or a radar antenna could even perform the function of detecting and recording. The recitation therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “more than one force-sensitive resistor, to detect and record the physiological information of the user.” It is unclear how a resistor can “detect and record the physiological information of the user.” Resistors restrict electrical current flow. They do not in and of themselves detect and record information, particularly physiological information of the user. The recitation therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the life information of the user.” The scope of the recitation is unclear. It is not possible to determine what the metes and bounds of “the life information of the user” encompasses. The specification merely includes examples “such as breathing and heartbeat,” but fails to properly define the scope of the recitation.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “PU material” without defining what PU is. The scope is therefore unclear. It is assumed for purposes of examination that PU means polyurethane.
The term “soft” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “thin” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “soft” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation that “said control box is connected with a mobile device or a computer via Bluetooth pairing,” thereby positively reciting “a mobile device” and “a computer.” The claim, however, is directed toward “an intelligent bed mattress,” which would not include those devices as this is not a combination claim. It is assumed that applicant intended to recite that --said control box is configured to be connected with a mobile device or a computer via Bluetooth pairing--, which is how the claim will be treated for purposes of examination.
Allowable Subject Matter
The claims may be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome all rejections as set forth above including the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph. Additional review would be required as corrections would appear to necessitate amendments and a final determination regarding allowability is therefore not possible at this time. See above for the rejections set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. While, due to the severity of the issues as described above, art was unable to be reasonably applied to the claims, examiner notes that the cited references are pertinent to the instant invention. The cited references include control systems for mattresses and/or beds as well as ones which include data collection systems for biometric, physiological, or other user-related information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SOSNOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7944. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 3:30 PM and 9 PM through 11:59 PM Monday through Friday, generally.
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, Justin Mikowski can be reached at (571)272-8525. 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.
/DAVID E. SOSNOWSKI/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3673
/David E Sosnowski/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673