DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 the Application
2. This application, filed June 20, 2025, is a continuation of PCT/KR2023/021426, filed December 22, 2023. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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 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.
4. 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:
“detection unit” in claims 1, 2, and 5-10;
“layer unit” in claims 1, 5, 6, and 9;
“memory unit” in claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9;
“control unit” in claims 1, 3, 5, 6, and 8-10;
“waking unit” in claim 1, 4, 5, 6, and 9;
“vibration generation module” in claim 4; and
“sound generation module” in claim 4.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9 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.
In particular, the claim limitation, “memory unit” invokes 35 USC. 112(f), but 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 is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed memory function. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the claimed memory function. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would recognize that such a function could be performed in any number of ways by hardware alone or by a combination of hardware and software. The specification does not provide sufficient details to inform one of ordinary skill in the art which structure(s) perform(s) the claimed function. For these reasons, claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9 are indefinite.
Claims 2-4 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 because claims 2-4 depend from claim 1.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 because claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 because claim 10 depends from claim 9.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, and 9 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 adequate structure to perform the claimed memory function. 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 to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-4 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 because claims 2-4 depend from claim 1.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 because claims 7 and 8 depend from claim 6.
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 because claim 10 depends from claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. Claims 1, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giovannelli et al. (US 7,855,652 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Giovannelli discloses:
a waking device (col. 5, lines 28-30; FIG. 1: 10), the device comprising:
a plurality of components (col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 12; FIG. 2: 10);
Giovannelli does not explicitly disclose at least one layer that comprises the plurality of components, but Giovannelli does disclose that the device comprises a plurality of components (col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 12; FIG. 2); Giovannelli does disclose that the plurality of components comprises a microprocessor (FIG. 2: 25), a memory (FIG. 2: 30), a wireless communications device (FIG. 2: 35), a motion sensor (FIG. 2: 50), and an alert mechanism (FIG. 2: 45), and Giovannelli does disclose that the plurality of components engage in electronic communication with one another (col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 12), all of which suggests that the plurality of components are arranged on at least one layer, such as a printed circuit board, for the benefit of fixing the components in place in the device and enabling the components to engage in electronic communication with one another;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have arranged the device of Giovannelli in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the device to fix the components in place in the device and enable the components to engage in electronic communication with one another;
a detection unit provided in the layer unit to detect user state information (col. 6, lines 22-26);
a memory unit in which user state information detected by the detection unit is stored (col. 6, lines 30-45; col. 10, lines 26-38; col. 12, lines 11-17);
a control unit that generates a user-specific waking signal according to user state information stored in the memory unit (col. 6, lines 30-45; col. 10, lines 26-38); and
a waking unit that generates user-specific stimulation according to a signal generated from the control unit (col. 9, lines 4-10; FIG. 2: 45).
Regarding claim 2, Giovanelli discloses that the memory unit maps and stores user state information detected by the detection unit for each user. (col. 10, lines 26-38; col. 12, lines 11-17)
Regarding claim 4, Giovanelli discloses that the waking unit comprises: at least one of a vibration generation module and a sound generation module. (col. 6, lines 12-15)
Regarding claim 5, Giovanelli discloses:
a waking method (col. 1, lines 15-20) performed in a waking device (col. 5, lines 28-30; FIG. 1: 10) comprising a detection unit (col. 6, lines 22-26), a memory unit (col. 6, lines 30-45), a control unit (col. 6, lines 30-45; col. 10, lines 26-38), and a waking unit (col. 9, lines 4-10; FIG. 2: 45),
Giovannelli does not explicitly disclose a layer unit, but Giovannelli does disclose that the device comprises a plurality of components (col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 12; FIG. 2); Giovannelli does disclose that the plurality of components comprises a microprocessor (FIG. 2: 25), a memory (FIG. 2: 30), a wireless communications device (FIG. 2: 35), a motion sensor (FIG. 2: 50), and an alert mechanism (FIG. 2: 45), and Giovannelli does disclose that the plurality of components engage in electronic communication with one another (col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 12), all of which suggests that the plurality of components are arranged a layer unit, such as a printed circuit board, for the benefit of fixing the components in place and enabling the components to engage in electronic communication with one another;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have arranged the method of Giovannelli in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the method to fix the components in place and enable the components to engage in electronic communication with one another;
the method comprising:
detecting user state information from a detection unit provided in the layer unit (col. 6, lines 22-26);
storing user state information detected by the detection unit in a memory unit (col. 6, lines 30-45; col. 10, lines 26-38; col. 12, lines 11-17);
generating a user-specific waking signal according to user state information stored in the memory unit from the control unit (col. 6, lines 30-45; col. 10, lines 26-38);
and generating user-specific stimulation from the waking unit according to a signal generated from the control unit (col. 9, lines 4-10; FIG. 2: 45).
Regarding claim 6, Giovannelli discloses
a waking device (col. 5, lines 28-30; FIG. 1: 10), the device comprising:
Giovannelli does not explicitly disclose at least one layer including a plurality of components, but Giovannelli does disclose that the device comprises a plurality of components (col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 12; FIG. 2); Giovannelli does disclose that the plurality of components comprises a microprocessor (FIG. 2: 25), a memory (FIG. 2: 30), a wireless communications device (FIG. 2: 35), a motion sensor (FIG. 2: 50), and an alert mechanism (FIG. 2: 45), and Giovannelli does disclose that the plurality of components engage in electronic communication with one another (col. 5, line 53 – col. 6, line 12), all of which suggests that the plurality of components are arranged on at least one layer, such as a printed circuit board, for the benefit of fixing the components in place in the device and enabling the components to engage in electronic communication with one another;
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have arranged the device of Giovannelli in the foregoing manner because that would have enabled the device to fix the components in place in the device and enable the components to engage in electronic communication with one another;
first and second detection units provided in the layer unit to detect a plurality of user state information (col. 10, lines 21-24);
a memory unit in which a plurality of user state information detected by the first and second detection units are stored (col. 6, lines 30-45; col. 10, lines 26-38; col. 12, lines 11-17);
a control unit that generates a user-specific waking signal according to a plurality of user state information stored in the memory unit (col. 6, lines 30-45; col. 10, lines 26-38); and
first and second waking units that generate user-specific stimulation according to a signal generated from the control unit (col. 7, lines 38-47; col. 9, lines 4-10),
wherein the first and second waking units are independently driven by the control unit so as to generate stimulation for each of a plurality of users (col. 9, lines 4-10; col. 7, lines 38-47).
Claim 7 is rejected as claim 2.
Regarding claim 8, Giovannelli discloses that the control unit executes an operation to determine which user each of the plurality of users is based on the plurality of user state information acquired by the first and second detection units. (col. 7, lines 38-47; col. 10, lines 26-38; col. 12, lines 11-17; it is noted that the claim does not recite that the plurality of user state information is acquired by the first and second detection units for each of the plurality of users.)
Regarding claim 9, Giovannelli discloses:
a waking method (col. 1, lines 15-19) performed in a waking device (col. 5, lines 28-30; FIG. 1: 10) comprising a layer unit, first and second detection units (col. 10, lines 21-24), a memory unit (col. 6, lines 30-45), a control unit (col. 6, lines 30-45; col. 10, lines 26-38), and first and second waking units (col. 7, lines 38-47; col. 9, lines 4-10), the method comprising:
detecting user state information items of a plurality of users from the first and second detection units provided in the layer unit (col. 6, lines 22-26; the detection of user state information items of a plurality of users constitutes mere duplication of parts, which requires only ordinary skill in the art, so would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art and is not inventive);
storing user state information items detected by the detection units in the memory unit (col. 6, lines 30-45; col. 10, lines 26-38; col. 12, lines 11-17);
generating a waking signal for each user according to the user state information items stored in the memory unit from the control unit (col. 7, lines 38-47; col. 9, lines 4-10; the generation of a waking signal for each user according to the user state information items stored in the memory unit from the control unit constitutes mere duplication of parts, which requires only ordinary skill in the art, so would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art and is not inventive); and
generating user-specific stimulation from at least one of the first or second waking units according to a signal generated from the control unit (col. 9, lines 4-10; FIG. 2: 45).
11. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giovannelli in view of Engel et al. (US 11,052,222 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Giovanelli discloses that the control unit generates stimulation at a sub-threshold level or threshold level that can be derived from accumulated user state information as the waking signal (col. 10, lines 38-45), wherein the threshold level is a critical level of stimulation that can induce a user to wake up from sleep (col. 10, lines 38-45).
Giovanelli does not explicitly disclose that the sub-threshold level is a critical level of stimulation that can induce a bio signal of a user in a sleep state to change to a set value.
Engel, addressing the same problem of how to arrange sleep state alerts, teaches a sleep induction device for inducing changes during a sleep session of a user and a method for inducing a change in a sleep state of a user during a sleep session (col. 1, lines 17-20), wherein the device recognizes situations in which the sleep profile of the user deviates from the mean or normal sleep profile, for example due to sleepwalking, and adapts the stimuli provided by a stimulator accordingly (col. 4, lines 3-15),wherein by stimulating the user with successive stimuli, an initial guidance path is formed to guide the user from a first sleep state to a second sleep state (col. 8, lines 21-24) for the benefit that a change in the sleep state of the user is induced (col 8, lines 21-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Engel with the device of Giovanelli because that would have enabled the device to induce a change in the sleep state of the user.
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giovannelli in view of Shinar et al. (US 2014/0371635 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Giovannelli discloses that the generating of a waking signal for each user from the control unit. (col. 9, lines 4-10; FIG. 2: 45)
Giovannelli does not disclose that the generating of a waking signal for each user from the control unit is executed subsequent to a process of determining which user each of a plurality of users is based on a plurality of user state information acquired by the first and second detection units.
Shinar, addressing the same problem of how to distinguish multiple users from sensor data, teaches methods and apparatus for predicting and monitoring abnormal physiological conditions by non-contact measurement and analysis of characteristics of physiological and/or physical parameters ([0022]), comprising a subject identification module that distinguishes between components of a motion sensor signal generated by a first user and a second user ([0145], [0146], [0163]) and then analyzes the components of the signal that were generated by the subject user and generates outputs (such as alerts) in response thereto ([0110]) for the benefit of accurately monitoring pre-episodic indicators to increase the effectiveness of preventive treatment of a chronic condition ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have combined the teachings of Shinar with the method of Giovanelli because that would have enabled the method to accurately monitor pre-episodic indicators to increase the effectiveness of preventive treatment of a chronic condition.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F MORTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-1873. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10-7 ET.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. 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.
/JOHN F MORTELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights