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 .
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 remote device” 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.
After reviewing the specification, the remote device appears to be drawn to a smartphone or a tablet, or known equivalents, per paragraph [0173]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 5, 7-9, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franceschetti (US 2016/0310697)
Regarding claim 1, Franceschetti teaches a sleep promotion system (see at least Abstract, paragraph [0011]) comprising: at least one body sensor (210, Fig. 2, paragraph [0046]); at least one smart appliance (see Fig. 12, see paragraph [0070]); and at least one processor in communication with the at least one body sensor and the at least one smart appliance (230, Fig. 2, paragraph [0046]), the at least one processor configured to: receive sensor data from the at least one body sensor (see paragraph [0046]); determine a sleep state and/or a sleep stage for a user based on the sensor data (see paragraph [0062]); and cause a change in one or more settings of the at least one smart appliance based on the sleep state and/or sleep stage of the user (see paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 5, Franceschetti teaches a sleep promotion system of claim 1, wherein the sleep state includes an awake state of the user and an asleep state of the user (see paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 7, Franceschetti teaches a sleep promotion system of claim 1, wherein the sensor data includes heart rate (see paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 8, Franceschetti teaches a sleep promotion system of claim 1, wherein the at least one smart appliance includes one or more light bulbs and/or a thermostat (see paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 9, Franceschetti teaches a sleep promotion system comprising: at least one body sensor (210, Fig. 2, paragraph [0046]); at least one smart appliance (see Fig. 12, see paragraph [0070]); and at least one processor in communication with the at least one body sensor and the at least one smart appliance (230, Fig. 2, paragraph [0046]), the at least one processor configured to: receive sensor data from the at least one body sensor (see paragraph [0046]); determine a sleep state and/or a sleep stage for a user based on the sensor data (see paragraph [0062]); and cause a change in one or more settings of the at least one smart appliance based on the sleep state and/or sleep stage of the user (see paragraph [0065]), wherein the at least one smart appliance includes one or more light bulbs and/or a thermostat (see paragraph [0066]).
Regarding claim 13, Franceschetti teaches the sleep promotion system of claim 9, wherein the sleep state includes an awake state of the user and an asleep state of the user (see paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 15, Franceschetti teaches the sleep promotion system of claim 9, wherein the sensor data includes respiration rate, heart rate (paragraph [0073]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franceschetti in view of Oexman (US 8,768,520).
Regarding claim 2, Franceschetti teaches a sleep promotion system of claim 1, but does not teach the at least one processor is further configured to generate a sleep score for the user based on sensor data.
Oexman teaches a system for providing sleep data (Oexman, Title) which teaches generating sleep score based on monitoring of the user's body (Oexman, Fig. 6, see col. 6, lines 43-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Franceschetti with generating a sleep score for an individual, as taught by Oexman, in order to provide the user with a direct metric on how their sleep is progressing.
Regarding claim 3, Franceschetti as modified teaches a sleep promotion system of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the change in the one or more settings of the at least one smart appliance based on the sleep score (through the combination of references, wherein the change in the setting of the at least one smart appliance is determined based on the sleep score of the at least one individual, as the sleep score must require wake/sleep windows in order to provide a complete score, therefore determining the setting of the smart appliance).
Regarding claim 4, Franceschetti as modified teaches a sleep promotion system of claim 2, wherein the sleep score is based on at least an amount of time the user has slept and/or an amount of time the user has been in deep sleep (Oexman, Fig. 6, see col. 6, lines 43-60).
Regarding claim 10, Franceschetti teaches the sleep promotion system of claim 9, but does not teach the at least one processor is further configured to generate a sleep score for the user based on sensor data.
Oexman teaches a system for providing sleep data (Oexman, Title) which teaches generating sleep score based on monitoring of the user's body (Oexman, Fig. 6, see col. 6, lines 43-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Franceschetti with generating a sleep score for an individual, as taught by Oexman, in order to provide the user with a direct metric on how their sleep is progressing.
Regarding claim 11, Franceschetti as modified teaches the sleep promotion system of claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to cause the change in the one or more settings of the at least one smart appliance based on the sleep score (through the combination of references, wherein the change in the setting of the at least one smart appliance is determined based on the sleep score of the at least one individual, as the sleep score must require wake/sleep windows in order to provide a complete score, therefore determining the setting of the smart appliance).
Regarding claim 12, Franceschetti as modified teaches the sleep promotion system of claim 10, wherein the sleep score is based on at least an amount of time the user has slept and/or an amount of time the user has been in deep sleep (Oexman, Fig. 6, see col. 6, lines 43-60).
Claims 6 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franceschetti in view of Scorcioni (US 2016/0136385).
Regarding claim 6, Franceschetti teaches a sleep promotion system of claim 1, but does not teach the at least one processor is further configured to receive a user profile comprising the one or more settings.
Scorcioni teaches a system for conditioning sleep environment (Scorioni, Title) which generates a user profile based off of historical data, user preferences, and physical characteristics compiled by a user sensor (see Scorioni, paragraph [0103]), and determine a wake up for the user (Scorcioni, paragraph [0143]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Franceschetti as modified with generating a user profile that can determine a wake up time for the user, as taught by Scorcioni, in order to provide the user with greater personalization with the system thereby enhancing the user experience.
Regarding claim 14, Franceschetti as modified teaches the sleep promotion system of claim 9, but does not teach the at least one processor is further configured to receive a user profile comprising the one or more settings.
Scorcioni teaches a system for conditioning sleep environment (Scorioni, Title) which generates a user profile based off of historical data, user preferences, and physical characteristics compiled by a user sensor (see Scorioni, paragraph [0103]), and determine a wake up for the user (Scorcioni, paragraph [0143]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Franceschetti as modified with generating a user profile that can determine a wake up time for the user, as taught by Scorcioni, in order to provide the user with greater personalization with the system thereby enhancing the user experience.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franceschetti (US 2016/0310697) in view of Scorcioni (US 2016/0136385).
Regarding claim 16, Franceschetti teaches a sleep promotion system comprising: at least one body sensor (210, Fig. 2, paragraph [0046]); at least one smart appliance see Fig. 12, see paragraph [0070]); and at least one processor in network communication with the at least one body sensor and the at least one smart appliance (230, Fig. 2, paragraph [0046]), wherein the at least one body sensor is operable to generate and transmit sensor data for at least one individual to the at least one processor in real time (see paragraph [0046]); wherein the at least one processor is operable to determine a sleep state and/or a sleep stage for the at least one individual based on the sensor data (see paragraph [0065]).
Franceschetti does not teach:
wherein the at least one processor is operable to generate at least one user profile, wherein the at least one user profile is associated with the at least one smart appliance, wherein the at least one user profile includes settings associated with the at least one smart appliance, wherein the settings include commands for the at least one smart appliance upon detection that the at least one individual has fallen asleep or woken up.
Scorcioni teaches a system for conditioning sleep environment (Scorioni, Title) which generates a user profile based off of historical data, user preferences, and physical characteristics compiled by a user sensor (see Scorioni, paragraph [0103]), and determine a wake up for the user (Scorcioni, paragraph [0143]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Franceschetti as modified with generating a user profile that can determine a wake up time for the user, as taught by Scorcioni, in order to provide the user with greater personalization with the system thereby enhancing the user experience.
Through the combination, Franceschetti as modified teaches “wherein the at least one user profile includes settings associated with the at least one smart appliance, wherein the settings include commands for the at least one smart appliance upon detection that the at least one individual has fallen asleep or woken up” as Scorcioni teaches the user profile and Franceschetti teaches adjusting a smart appliance through the sensing of user’s wake state (paragraph [0061]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 17, Franceschetti as modified teaches the sleep promotion system of claim 16, but does not teach the at least one processor is operable to generate a sleep score for the at least one individual based on the sensor data.
Oexman teaches a system for providing sleep data (Oexman, Title) which teaches generating sleep score based on monitoring of the user's body (Oexman, Fig. 6, see col. 6, lines 43-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Franceschetti with generating a sleep score for an individual, as taught by Oexman, in order to provide the user with a direct metric on how their sleep is progressing.
Regarding claim 18, Franceschetti as modified teaches the sleep promotion system of claim 17, wherein at least one of the settings is dependent upon the sleep score of the at least one individual (met through the combination).
Regarding claim 19, Franceschetti as modified teaches the sleep promotion system of claim 17, wherein the sleep score is based on at least an amount of time the at least one individual has slept and/or an amount of time the at least one individual has been in deep sleep (Oexman, Fig. 6, see col. 6, lines 43-60).
Regarding claim 20, Franceschetti as modified teaches the sleep promotion system of claim 16, wherein the at least one smart appliance includes one or more light bulbs and/or a thermostat (Franscechetti, paragraph [0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at (571)-270-5054. 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights