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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 05, 2025; July 10, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on January 15, 2025 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be a typo in “hyopnea” which should read “hypopnea”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 20-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 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 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 20 is directed to “a method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a process.
Claim 21 is directed to “a system” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a machine or manufacture.
Claim 37 is directed to “A non-transitory computer readable medium” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e. a machine or manufacture.
Each of Claims 20-39 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 20, 21 and 37 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows: “identifying a respiration condition indicative of apnea based at least in part on sensor data generated from the one or more sensors of the smart phone while the smart phone is on the chest of the user while the user sleeps on the bed; and”
In claims 20, 21 and 37, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation, the accelerometer data, either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to perform the calculations to obtain the respiration condition via pen and paper. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the apnea/respiration condition is to be identified. Therefore, a person would be able to perform the identification mentally or with a generic computer.
Prong Two: Claims 20, 21 and 37 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) “positioning a smart phone having one or more sensors on a chest of the user; laying the user on the bed;”
(2) “outputting a health report on a display of a user interface that indicates the identified respiration condition indicative of apnea on the display/ a user interface comprising a display”.
(3) “one or more processors and memory storing instructions”.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details).
The step in (2) represents merely notification outputting by a processor as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
The steps in (3) merely recite generic computer components used to implement the abstract idea on, as tools.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated bio-information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 20, 21 and 37 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of (1) “positioning a smart phone having one or more sensors on a chest of the user; laying the user on the bed;”
(2) “outputting a health report on a display of a user interface that indicates the identified respiration condition indicative of apnea on the display/ a user interface comprising a display”.
(3) “one or more processors and memory storing instructions”.
These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality.
The respiration information is obtained from a smartphone accelerometer. These additional limitations merely represent insignificant, conventional pre-solution activities well-understood in the industry of vibration based bio-information estimation, as the sensors recited are well understood, routine and conventional, as evidenced by Siu et al. (US 2017/0209074 A1) (“Siu”) and Gartenberg (US 2022/0155737 A1) (“Gartenberg”) and Albert (US 2014/0066798 A1) (“Albert”). Which all discloses the sensors as well understood, routine and conventional.
Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept.
The recited processors and computer-readable storage medium are generic computer elements (i.d. para. [0037] describing generic computers).
Therefore, none of the Claims 20, 21 and 37amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 20, 21 and 37 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Claims 23-29, 35 and 38-39 recitations further limits the abstract idea above, acquiring a distance and calculating a pulse wave velocity merely further defines the mental process or mathematical equations discussed above.
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
Claim 22, 30-34, 36 further define the sensors used for insignificant extra-solution activity (data collection/data processing).
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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.
Claims 20-21, 23-26, 30-31 and 35-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Siu et al. (US 2017/0209074 A1) (“Siu”).
Regarding claim 20, Siu discloses A method of detecting apnea of a user sleeping on a bed, the method comprising (Abstract and entire document):
positioning a smart phone having one or more sensors on a chest of the user ([0073]);
laying the user on the bed (FIG. 13-14, sleeping, detecting sleep apnea also implies sleeping on bed);
identifying a respiration condition indicative of apnea based at least in part on sensor data generated from the one or more sensors of the smart phone while the smart phone is on the chest of the user while the user sleeps on the bed ([0073] and FIG. 13-14); and
outputting a health report on a display of a user interface that indicates the identified respiration condition indicative of apnea on the display ([0037], [0041], FIG. 13-14).
Regarding claim 21, Siu discloses A system for detecting apnea, the system comprising (Abstract and entire document):
a smart phone comprising one or more sensors configured to monitor respiration activity of a user when the smart phone is positioned on a chest of the user ([0073]);
a user interface comprising a display ([0037]); and
one or more processors and memory storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to ([0037]):
receive, from the one or more sensors, sensor data that represents the respiration activity of the user ([0073]);
identify a respiration condition indicative of apnea based at least in part on the sensor data ([0073] and FIG. 13-14); and
drive the user interface to present a health report that indicates the identified respiration condition indicative of apnea on the display ([0037], [0041], FIG. 13-14).
Regarding claim 23, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine a severity of the identified respiration condition indicative of apnea ([0065]).
Regarding claim 24, Siu discloses The system of claim 23, wherein the health report further indicates the severity of the identified respiration condition indicative of apnea ([0065]).
Regarding claim 25, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine respiratory information by analyzing the sensor data; and wherein the health report includes the respiratory information ([0065]).
Regarding claim 26, Siu discloses The system of claim 25, wherein the respiratory information includes respiration rhythm and rate information ([0006], [0044 – 0045]).
Regarding claim 30, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, wherein at least one of the one or more processors is part of a cloud server in data communication with the smart phone ([0037]).
Regarding claim 31, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, wherein at least one of the one or more processors is part of the smart phone ([0037]).
Regarding claim 35, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, wherein the respiration condition is shortness of breath or hyopnea ([0037], [0041], FIG. 13-14).
Regarding claim 36, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to filter and transform the sensor data to enhance respiratory components in the sensor data ([0044], [0066]).
Regarding claim 37, Siu discloses A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions for causing one or more processors to (Abstract and entire document):
receive, from one or more sensors of a smart phone configured to monitor respiration activity of a user when the smart phone is positioned on a chest of the user, sensor data that represents the respiration activity of the user ([0073]);
identify a respiration condition indicative of apnea based at least in part on the sensor data ([0073] and FIG. 13-14); and
drive a user interface of the smart phone to present a health report that indicates the identified respiration condition indicative of apnea ([0037], [0041], FIG. 13-14).
Regarding claim 38, Siu discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 37, wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to determine a severity of the apnea and the health report further indicates the severity of the apnea ([0065]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 22, 27-29 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siu in view of Gartenberg (US 2022/0155737 A1) (“Gartenberg”).
Regarding claim 22, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, Siu fails to disclose wherein the one or more sensors include: (a) an accelerometer; (b) a gyroscope; (c) a microphone; or (d) any combination of (a), (b), and (c).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gartenberg teaches wherein the one or more sensors include: (a) an accelerometer; (b) a gyroscope; (c) a microphone; or (d) any combination of (a), (b), and (c) ([0068]).
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 system as taught by Siu to include wherein the one or more sensors include: (a) an accelerometer; (b) a gyroscope; (c) a microphone; or (d) any combination of (a), (b), and (c) as taught by Gartenberg to receive optimal data [0016]).
Regarding claim 27, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, Siu fails to disclose wherein identifying the respiration condition includes using machine learning.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gartenberg teaches wherein identifying the respiration condition includes using machine learning ([0029 – 0030]).
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 system as taught by Siu to include wherein identifying the respiration condition includes using machine learning as taught by Gartenberg to determine quality of sleep ([0028]).
Regarding claim 28, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, Siu fails to disclose wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to process the sensor data to determine that the user was snoring.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gartenberg teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to process the sensor data to determine that the user was snoring ([0028]).
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 system as taught by Siu to include wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to process the sensor data to determine that the user was snoring as taught by Gartenberg to determine quality of sleep ([0028]).
Regarding claim 29, Siu discloses The system of claim 28, Siu fails to disclose wherein the health report further indicates the user was snoring.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gartenberg teaches wherein the health report further indicates the user was snoring ([0028]).
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 system as taught by Siu to include wherein the health report further indicates the user was snoring as taught by Gartenberg to determine quality of sleep ([0028]).
Regarding claim 39, Siu discloses The non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 37, Siu fails to disclose wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to process the sensor data to determine that the user was snoring and the health report further indicates the user was snoring.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gartenberg teaches wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to process the sensor data to determine that the user was snoring and the health report further indicates the user was snoring ([0028]).
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 system as taught by Siu to include wherein the instructions further cause the one or more processors to process the sensor data to determine that the user was snoring and the health report further indicates the user was snoring as taught by Gartenberg to determine quality of sleep ([0028]).
Claims 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siu in view of Albert (US 2014/0066798 A1) (“Albert”).
Regarding claim 32, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, Siu fails to disclose wherein the smart phone is provisioned with an application that is configured with instructions for recording the sensor data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Albert teaches wherein the smart phone is provisioned with an application that is configured with instructions for recording the sensor data ([0108 – 0122]).
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 system as taught by Siu to include wherein the smart phone is provisioned with an application that is configured with instructions for recording the sensor data as taught by Albert to use widely available devices ([0008]).
Regarding claim 33, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, Siu fails to disclose wherein the smart phone is provisioned with an application that is configured with instructions for generating the health report.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Albert teaches wherein the smart phone is provisioned with an application that is configured with instructions for generating the health report ([0108 – 0122]).
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 system as taught by Siu to include wherein the smart phone is provisioned with an application that is configured with instructions for generating the health report as taught by Albert to use widely available devices ([0008]).
Regarding claim 34, Siu discloses The system of claim 21, Siu fails to disclose wherein the smart phone is provisioned with an application that is configured with instructions for sending the identified respiration condition indicative of apnea to an entity who is not the user.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Albert teaches wherein the smart phone is provisioned with an application that is configured with instructions for sending the identified respiration condition indicative of apnea to an entity who is not the user ([0108 – 0122]).
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 system as taught by Siu to include wherein the smart phone is provisioned with an application that is configured with instructions for sending the identified respiration condition indicative of apnea to an entity who is not the user as taught by Albert to use widely available devices ([0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH A TOMBERS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights