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 the Application
Claims 31—60 have been examined in this application. Claims 1—30 have been canceled. Claims 31—60 are newly added. This communication is a Final Rejection in response to Applicant’s “Amendments/Remarks” filed 07/16/2026. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 07/16/2026 has been acknowledged by the Office.
Specification
The specification objections made in the Non-Final Rejection on 04/22/2026 are
withdrawn in light of the amendments to the Specification filed on 07/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection made to claim(s) 1 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the Non-Final has been withdrawn in light of the claims’ amendment/cancelation.
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 (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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 31—36 & 40—60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S Patent Application 2021/0315389 A1 to Francesche (Francesche hereafter).
As per claim 31, Francesche teaches:
A method of adjusting a temperature of a bed device (para [0091]), the method comprising: receiving an input (230—Fig.1; para [0091]: user may select input setting for the system) comprising a biological state (para [0208]: biofeedback provided by user or detected from processor); selecting an operating mode comprising a temperature profile associated with the biological state (para [0208]: operating mode considered temperature setting which includes a temperature profile); and directing a temperature regulator (para [0208]: temperature regulator) to adjust the temperature of the bed device according to the temperature profile (para [0209]: temperature may be adjusted to the temperature profile).
As per claim 32, Francesche teaches:
The method of claim 31, wherein the biological state is selected from a plurality of biological states based on a biological sex (para [0205]: temperature may be modulated based on user’s identity e.g. gender).
As per claim 33, Francesche teaches:
The method of claim 32, wherein the biological sex is female (para [0208]).
As per claim 34, Francesche teaches:
The method of claim 33, wherein the biological state comprises menstruating, pregnant, post-partum, or menopausal (para [0208]).
As per claim 35, Francesche teaches:
The method of claim 31, wherein the operating mode is a menstruation mode, a pregnancy mode, a post-partum mode, or a menopausal mode (para [0208]: temperature setting can be based on pregnancy or menopause).
As per claim 36, Francesche teaches:
The method of claim 31, further comprising modifying the temperature of the bed device in response to feedback (para [0208]: temperature may be modified based on biofeedback).
As per claim 40, Francesche teaches:
The method of claim 36, wherein the feedback is indicative of hot flashes or night sweats (para [0208]: biofeedback includes menopause fever and other physical conditions).
As per claim 41, Francesche teaches:
The method of claim 31, wherein the temperature profile comprises a range of temperatures (para [0176]).
As per claim 42, Francesche teaches:
The method of claim 31, wherein the input is provided via a graphical user interface (para [0205]).
As per claim 43, Francesche teaches:
A system for adjusting a temperature of a bed device (para [0091]), the system comprising:
a bed device (para [0053]); a graphical user interface coupled to the bed device (para [0205]) and configured to receive an input (230—Fig.1; para [0091]: user may select input setting for the system) comprising at least one biological state (para [0208]: biofeedback provided by user or detected from processor); a temperature regulator coupled to the bed device (para [0208]: temperature regulator); and a memory coupled to at least one processor (para [0397] computer memory comprises machine executable code) configured to: select an operating mode (para [0208]: operating mode considered temperature setting which includes a temperature profile) comprising a temperature profile associated with the at least one biological state (para [0209]:temperature may be adjusted to the temperature profile); and provide a control signal to the temperature regulator (para [0084]), wherein the temperature regulator is configured to adjust a temperature of the bed device based on the control signal (para [0208]: temperature regulator adjust temp based on biofeedback).
As per claim 44, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 43, wherein the at least one biological state is based on a biological sex (para [0208]).
As per claim 45, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 44, wherein the biological sex is female (para [0208]).
As per claim 46, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 45, wherein the at least one biological state comprises menstruating, pregnant, post-partum, menopausal, a schedule of a menstrual cycle, a time within a menstrual cycle, lack of a menstrual cycle, use of a birth control, lack of use of a birth control, a breast-feeding period, use of hormonal therapy, lack of use of hormonal therapy, polycystic ovarian syndrome, hot flashes, or a combination thereof (para [0208]).
As per claim 47, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 43, wherein the control signal is an instruction to change the temperature of the bed device according to the temperature profile (para [0082]).
As per claim 48, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 47, wherein the temperature profile varies based on a menstrual cycle, a trimester of pregnancy, a post-partum status, or menopause (para [0208]).
As per claim 49, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 47, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to communicate with a remote server storing the temperature profile (para [0272]).
As per claim 50, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 43, further comprising a sensor configured to detect a biometric associated with the at least one biological state (para [0064]).
As per claim 51, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 50, wherein the biometric is heart rate, heart rate variability, skin temperature, respiration rate, or perspiration (para [0064]).
As per claim 52, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 50, wherein the sensor is coupled to the bed device (para [0064]).
As per claim 53, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 50, wherein the sensor is disposed in a wearable device (para [0083]).
As per claim 54, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 53, wherein the graphical user interface is further configured to receive feedback (para [0115]).
As per claim 55, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 54, wherein the feedback is indicative of pregnancy, post- partum, menopause, or post-menopause (para [0208]).
As per claim 56, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 43, wherein the graphical user interface is a graphical user interface of a mobile device or a remote control (para [0209]: mobile phone, smart watch smart glasses etc.).
As per claim 57, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 43, further comprising: a first fluid loop (2302-Fig.23c; para [0226]) comprising a first pump (2330-Fig.23c; para [0226]) and a first channel (2360-Fig.23c; para [0226]); and a second fluid loop (2303-Fig.23c; para [0226]) comprising a second pump (2331-Fig.23c; para [0227]) and a second channel (2360-Fig.23c; para [0227]), wherein the first channel and the second channel are disposed adjacent to the temperature regulator (2340 & 2341-Fig.23c &d; para [0226-227]).
As per claim 58, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 57, wherein the first fluid loop is configured to regulate a temperature of a first portion of the bed device (2340 & 2341-Fig.23c &d; para [0226-227]) and the second fluid loop is configured to regulate a temperature of a second portion of the bed device (2340 & 2341-Fig.23c &d; para [0226-227]).
As per claim 59, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 57, further comprising a reservoir configured to contain a fluid, wherein the first pump and the second pump are configured to receive the fluid from the reservoir (2310-Fig.23c &d; para [0226-227]).
As per claim 60, Francesche teaches:
The system of claim 43, wherein the bed device is a mattress, a mattress pad, a pillow, or a blanket (para [0053]).
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.
Claim(s) 37—39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application 2021/0315389 A1 to Francesche in view of U.S Patent Application 6,600,696 B1 to Lynn (Lynn hereafter).
As per claim 37, Francesche teaches: The method of claim 36.
Francesche does not teach, wherein the feedback comprises a date of a last period or an average length of menstruation.
Lafon teaches, wherein the feedback comprises a date of a last period or an average length of menstruation (Col 13 Lines 1—11).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Francesche (directed to a method for adjusting the temperature of a bed device based on feedback provided for a sensor) and Lynn (directed to a health device for a women used to determining a date of a last period or an average length of menstruation) and arrived at a method for adjusting the temperature of a bed device based on feedback provided for a sensor and a health device for a women used to provide feedback that predicts the timing and average length of a women’s menstrual cycle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to aid the user in tracking dates regarding the women’s health cycles as taught in Lynn (Col 13 Lines 1—11).
As per claim 38, Francesche teaches: The method of claim 36.
Francesche does not teach, wherein the feedback comprises an expected due date or a confirmed due date.
Lynn teaches, wherein the feedback comprises an expected due date or a confirmed due date (910-Fig.10; Col 13 Lines 1—11).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Francesche (directed to a method for adjusting the temperature of a bed device based on feedback provided for a sensor) and Lynn (directed to a health device for a women used to determining a second trimester start date and a third trimester start date) and arrived at a method for adjusting the temperature of a bed device based on feedback provided for a sensor and a health device for a women used to provide feedback that predicts the timing and average length of a women’s menstrual cycle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to aid the user in tracking dates regarding the women’s health cycles as taught in Lynn (Col 13 Lines 1—11).
As per claim 39, Francesche (as modified) teaches: The method of claim 38.
Francesche does not teach: comprising determining a second trimester start date and a third trimester start date.
Lynn teaches, further comprising determining a second trimester start date and a third trimester start date (910-Fig.10; Col 13 Lines 1—11).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have combined Francesche (directed to a method for adjusting the temperature of a bed device based on feedback provided for a sensor) and Lynn (directed to a health device for a women used to determining a second trimester start date and a third trimester start date) and arrived at a method for adjusting the temperature of a bed device based on feedback provided for a sensor and a health device for a women used to provide feedback that predicts the timing and average length of a women’s menstrual cycle. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a combination to aid the user in tracking dates regarding the women’s health cycles as taught in Lynn (Col 13 Lines 1—11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants Arguments
Regarding independent claim 31 & 41 the applicant argues Independent claim 31 recites, in part, "receiving an input comprising a biological state; selecting an operating mode comprising a temperature profile associated with the biological state; and directing a temperature regulator to adjust the temperature of the bed device according to the temperature profile." Franceschetti and Kanes, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest at least these features. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Office allow new independent claim 31 and the claims depending therefrom.
Independent claim 43 recites, in part, "a memory coupled to at least one processor configured to: select an operating mode comprising a temperature profile associated with the at least one biological state; and provide a control signal to the temperature regulator, wherein the temperature regulator is configured to adjust a temperature of the bed device based on the control signal." Franceschetti and Kanes, alone or in combination, do not disclose or suggest at least these features. Applicant therefore respectfully requests that the Office allow new independent claim 43 and the claims depending therefrom.
Examiner’s Response to Arguments
Regarding independent claim 31 & 41 the examiner relies on the teachings of U.S Patent Application 2021/0315389 A1 to Francesche to form the basis of the rejection as presented above. The examiner highlights that Francesche teaches receiving an input based on a biological state (para [0208-209]) and directing a temperature regulator to adjust the temperature of a bed to a desired temperature profile. The examiner further submits that Francesche further teaches an operating mode provided with a temperature profile associated with a biological state and provided a control signal to send information to the temperature regulator (para [0084]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/D.T.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3673 07/29/2026
/JUSTIN C MIKOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3673
Prosecution Insights