DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 28 October 2025.
Claims 1-20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims
1-20.
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 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method of gathering data, analyzing the data, and providing a recommendation based on the data. The initial step of “receiving initial sensor data” could be interpreted as a practitioner receiving printed matter that contains sensor data; the steps of “determining behavior patterns” of sets of sleep events of target subjects based on the initial sensor data and data from an activity tracker could amount to a practitioner looking at the printed matter of data and determining mentally a pattern of behavior of the individuals while sleeping; the step of “generating a recommendation based on the behavior patterns” of the sleep events could amount to the practitioner deciding how the individual should change their environment based on the behavior patterns and then recommending such change to the user which could be verbally or via printed matter; and the steps of “determining that that the second target subject followed the recommendation; and determining that following the recommendation resulted in improved sleep of the second target subject” could amount to a practitioner determining that a subject followed the recommendation by visual observation or by looking at printed data which indicated the recommendation was followed and sleep was improved. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the aforementioned steps, as written, can be performed in a practitioner’s mind, with the aid of printed paper.
While claim 1 recites the additional step/element of causing a user device…to display a user interface… a user interface/display/GUI are well-understood and conventional components of a generic computing device (Youngblood et al. - U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0077942). Further reciting that the displaying includes displaying the recommendation, such a step is merely reciting causing a computer device to display the recommendation, which essentially amount to a generic step of “apply it”.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because while claims 1, 14, and 18 recite the additional elements of a computer or processor coupled to memory containing instructions, these additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the mental and/or paper-implemented steps of “receiving,” “determining,” “generating” and “causing” are merely being implemented on generic computer elements and thus do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea since they simply amount to implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer component (memory) containing an application which is essentially a set of instructions.
While claims 1, 5-7, 14 and 18 recite the additional step(s)/element(s) of detecting via at least one of a temperature, pressure, humidity, light, sound, thermal-imaging or motion sensor, such sensor(s) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because such sensors are well-understood and conventional in the art as suggested by Youngblood et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0077942) and Lipoma et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0105608).
Dependent claims 2-8, 15-17, 19 and 20 likewise recite steps which can be performed via pen/paper and performed mentally as determining if a recommendation is followed or a target behavior is achieved amount to a practitioner simply looking at a piece of paper containing data (such as data fathered from an activity tracker) or observing a patient and mentally updating the target outcome (or writing it down) following such determination. Likewise, providing an offer or reward can amount to simply dictating such to a patient if a recommendation is followed or an outcome achieved by the patient.
While claim 9 discloses “providing the user interface with a request for user preferences,” a user interface/display/GUI are well-understood and conventional components of a generic computing device which receive input/preferences to the user interface.
Dependent claim 10 likewise recite steps which can be performed mentally or via pen/paper as “receiving subsequent sensor data” amounts to receiving printed matter containing data as discussed above; “determining, based on a comparison of….data” can be performed mentally by looking at data; and updating the user interface to include a warning could amount to a practitioner inputting data/preferences to the user interface as indicated above.
Dependent claim 11 merely further limits the generic steps of determining that following the recommendation resulted in improved sleep, which can also be performed mentally by looking at data or simply observing the subject.
Claims 12 and 13 also recite steps of receiving sensor data and providing the user interface, which are addressed above.
While claim 13 recites the additional step/element of providing the sensor data as input to a trained machine-learning model and outputting the recommendation using the machine-learning model, these steps merely recite providing data to a machine-learning model, which is well-understood and conventional with respect to learning models (Youngblood et al. - U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0077942), and then outputting data using the model, which essentially amount to a generic step of “apply it”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinar et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0058429).
Regarding claim 1, Shinar et al. (hereinafter Shinar) teaches a computer-implemented method ([0591]-[0592], [0609], [0614]) comprising:
receiving initial sensor data from one or more sensors of a sensor set in a physical environment for a time period, wherein the sensor set includes at least one of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, a light sensor, a sound sensor, a thermal-imaging sensor, and a motion sensor ([0560], [0605], [0614]-[0615], [0630]);
determining behavior patterns of a first set of sleep events of a first target subject (care-receiver) based on the initial sensor data ([0605]-[0606] and [0616]);
determining behavior patterns of a second set of sleep events of a second target subject (care-giver) based on the initial sensor data, the behavior patterns of the first set of sleep events ([0615]-[0617]), and activity data from an activity tracker that is worn by the second target subject (from a wristwatch [0668]);
generating a recommendation based on the behavior patterns of the first set of sleep events to achieve a first target outcome for the first target subject in the physical environment (to awaken baby since baby is determined to be in light sleep stage) ([0615]-[0616] and [0013]) and based on the behavior patterns of the second set of sleep events to achieve a second target outcome for the second target subject (mother is also in light sleep stage so mother should be awoken to awake baby for feeding) ([0615]-[0616] and [0013]); and
causing a user device associated with the second target subject to display a user interface to the second target subject that includes the recommendation (alerting device alerts/wakes mother to go provide care ([0614]-[0616]), wherein the control unit provides the alert [0617], and the control unit is embodied in a smartphone/tablet and comprises a user interface 35 [0564]. While Shinar does not disclose explicitly that the method further comprises determining that the second target subject followed the recommendation; and determining that following the recommendation resulted in improved sleep of the second target subject, Shinar makes such obvious as Shinar teaches that the goal of the system/method is to wake the care-giver to attend to/feed the baby during times when both are either awake or in a light sleep stage [0616], which would improve sleep quality for both as opposed to disturbing them unnecessarily during a deeper sleep stage [0617].
Regarding claim 2, the second target outcome is increasing an amount of sleep achieved by the second target subject ([0616]-[0617]), wherein the activity data from the activity tracker measures the amount of sleep achieved by the second target subject [0640]. While Shinar does not disclose explicitly that the method further comprises: responsive to determining that the recommendation was followed, determining whether the second target outcome was achieved based on whether the amount of sleep achieved by the second target subject increased after following the recommendation, Shinar makes such obvious as Shinar teaches that the goal of the system/method is to wake the care-giver to attend to/feed the baby during times when both are either awake or in a light sleep stage [0616], and further that a sleep score is calculated based on parameters such as duration of sleep and sleep efficiency ([0640] and [0388]-[0390]), which would indicate whether the second target outcome (of improving sleep) was achieved.
Regarding claim 3, the method further comprises: responsive to determining that the second target outcome was achieved, updating the behavior patterns of the second set of sleep events based on subsequent sensor data; and updating the second target outcome based on updating the behavior patterns of the second set of sleep events ([0617] – “if the historical data shows that the care-provider typically takes longer to fall asleep than the care-receiver, the control unit may give greater weight to the sleep stage of the care-provider, relative to the sleep stage of the care-receiver. (Thus, for example, the control unit may alert the care-provider if the care-provider is awake, even if the care-receiver is in a deep sleep.)”).
Regarding claim 8, determining the behavior patterns of the first set of sleep events includes determining attributes associated with at least one sleep event selected from a group of: a bedtime preparation, a nighttime arousal, a naptime preparation, a naptime arousal, sleeping and combinations thereof ([0616]-[0617]).
Regarding claim 9, the method further comprises: prior to receiving the initial sensor data, providing the user interface 35 with a request for user preferences about the first target outcome and the second target outcome, wherein the first target outcome and the second target outcome are defined based on the user preferences [0616].
Regarding claim 10, the method further comprises: receiving subsequent sensor data for a subsequent time period; determining, based on a comparison of the subsequent sensor data to the behavior patterns of the first target subject, that an action is likely to precipitate a nighttime arousal or a naptime arousal; and updating the interface to include a warning that the action is likely to precipitate the nighttime arousal or the naptime arousal [0615].
Regarding claim 11, while Shinar does not disclose explicitly that the method further comprises determining that following the recommendation resulted in improved sleep of the first target subject, Shinar makes such obvious as Shinar teaches that the goal of the system/method is to wake the care-giver to attend to/feed the baby during times when both are either awake or in a light sleep stage [0616], which would improve sleep quality for both as opposed to disturbing them unnecessarily during a deeper sleep stage [0617].
Regarding claim 12, the method further comprises: receiving the initial sensor data associated with the second target subject that identifies a length of time when the user is asleep [0640]; and providing a user interface to the user that includes the length of time when the second target subject is asleep as compared to when the first target subject is asleep ([0688] and Fig. 12).
Regarding claim 13, the method further comprises: providing the initial sensor data as input to a trained machine-learning model; and outputting, using the trained machine-learning model, the recommendation for achieving the first target outcome and the second target outcome ([0619]-[0620]).
Regarding claim 14, Shinar teaches a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, with instructions stored thereon ([0591]-[0592], [0609], [0614]) that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving initial sensor data from one or more sensors of a sensor set in a physical environment for a time period, wherein the sensor set includes at least one of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, a light sensor, a sound sensor, a thermal-imaging sensor, and a motion sensor ([0560], [0605], [0614]-[0615], [0630]);
determining behavior patterns of a first set of sleep events of a first target subject (care-receiver) based on the initial sensor data ([0605]-[0606] and [0616]);
determining behavior patterns of a second set of sleep events of a second target subject (care-giver) based on the initial sensor data, the behavior patterns of the first set of sleep events ([0615]-[0617]), and activity data from an activity tracker that is worn by the second target subject (from a wristwatch [0668]);
generating a recommendation based on the behavior patterns of the first set of sleep events to achieve a first target outcome for the first target subject in the physical environment (to awaken baby since baby is determined to be in light sleep stage) ([0615]-[0616] and [0013]) and based on the behavior patterns of the second set of sleep events to achieve a second target outcome for the second target subject (mother is also in light sleep stage so mother should be awoken to awake baby for feeding) ([0615]-[0616] and [0013]); and
causing a user device associated with the second target subject to display a user interface to the second target subject that includes the recommendation (alerting device alerts/wakes mother to go provide care ([0614]-[0616]), wherein the control unit provides the alert [0617], and the control unit is embodied in a smartphone/tablet and comprises a user interface 35 [0564]. While Shinar does not disclose explicitly that the method further comprises determining that the second target subject followed the recommendation; and determining that following the recommendation resulted in improved sleep of the second target subject, Shinar makes such obvious as Shinar teaches that the goal of the system/method is to wake the care-giver to attend to/feed the baby during times when both are either awake or in a light sleep stage [0616], which would improve sleep quality for both as opposed to disturbing them unnecessarily during a deeper sleep stage [0617].
Regarding claim 15, the second target outcome is increasing an amount of sleep achieved by the second target subject ([0616]-[0617]), wherein the activity data from the activity tracker measures the amount of sleep achieved by the second target subject [0640]. While Shinar does not disclose explicitly that the operations further comprises: responsive to determining that the recommendation was followed, determining whether the second target outcome was achieved based on whether the amount of sleep achieved by the second target subject increased after following the recommendation, Shinar makes such obvious as Shinar teaches that the goal of the system/method is to wake the care-giver to attend to/feed the baby during times when both are either awake or in a light sleep stage [0616], and further that a sleep score is calculated based on parameters such as duration of sleep and sleep efficiency ([0640] and [0388]-[0390]), which would indicate whether the second target outcome (of improving sleep) was achieved.
Regarding claim 16, the operations further comprise: responsive to determining that the second target outcome was achieved, updating the behavior patterns of the second set of sleep events based on subsequent sensor data; and updating the second target outcome based on updating the behavior patterns of the second set of sleep events ([0617] – “if the historical data shows that the care-provider typically takes longer to fall asleep than the care-receiver, the control unit may give greater weight to the sleep stage of the care-provider, relative to the sleep stage of the care-receiver. (Thus, for example, the control unit may alert the care-provider if the care-provider is awake, even if the care-receiver is in a deep sleep.)”).
Regarding claim 18, Shinar teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium with instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more computers ([0591]-[0592], [0609], [0614]), cause the one or more computers to perform operations, the operations comprising: Shinar teaches a computing device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the one or more processors, with instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
receiving initial sensor data from one or more sensors of a sensor set in a physical environment for a time period, wherein the sensor set includes at least one of a temperature sensor, a pressure sensor, a humidity sensor, a light sensor, a sound sensor, a thermal-imaging sensor, and a motion sensor ([0560], [0605], [0614]-[0615], [0630]);
determining behavior patterns of a first set of sleep events of a first target subject (care-receiver) based on the initial sensor data ([0605]-[0606] and [0616]);
determining behavior patterns of a second set of sleep events of a second target subject (care-giver) based on the initial sensor data, the behavior patterns of the first set of sleep events ([0615]-[0617]), and activity data from an activity tracker that is worn by the second target subject (from a wristwatch [0668]);
generating a recommendation based on the behavior patterns of the first set of sleep events to achieve a first target outcome for the first target subject in the physical environment (to awaken baby since baby is determined to be in light sleep stage) ([0615]-[0616] and [0013]) and based on the behavior patterns of the second set of sleep events to achieve a second target outcome for the second target subject (mother is also in light sleep stage so mother should be awoken to awake baby for feeding) ([0615]-[0616] and [0013]); and
causing a user device associated with the second target subject to display a user interface to the second target subject that includes the recommendation (alerting device alerts/wakes mother to go provide care ([0614]-[0616]), wherein the control unit provides the alert [0617], and the control unit is embodied in a smartphone/tablet and comprises a user interface 35 [0564]. While Shinar does not disclose explicitly that the operations further comprise determining that the second target subject followed the recommendation; and determining that following the recommendation resulted in improved sleep of the second target subject, Shinar makes such obvious as Shinar teaches that the goal of the system/method is to wake the care-giver to attend to/feed the baby during times when both are either awake or in a light sleep stage [0616], which would improve sleep quality for both as opposed to disturbing them unnecessarily during a deeper sleep stage [0617].
Regarding claim 19, the second target outcome is increasing an amount of sleep achieved by the second target subject ([0616]-[0617]), wherein the activity data from the activity tracker measures the amount of sleep achieved by the second target subject [0640]. While Shinar does not disclose explicitly that the operations further comprise: responsive to determining that the recommendation was followed, determining whether the second target outcome was achieved based on whether the amount of sleep achieved by the second target subject increased after following the recommendation, Shinar makes such obvious as Shinar teaches that the goal of the system/method is to wake the care-giver to attend to/feed the baby during times when both are either awake or in a light sleep stage [0616], and further that a sleep score is calculated based on parameters such as duration of sleep and sleep efficiency ([0640] and [0388]-[0390]), which would indicate whether the second target outcome (of improving sleep) was achieved.
Regarding claim 20, the operations further comprise: responsive to determining that the second target outcome was achieved, updating the behavior patterns of the second set of sleep events based on subsequent sensor data; and updating the second target outcome based on updating the behavior patterns of the second set of sleep events ([0617] – “if the historical data shows that the care-provider typically takes longer to fall asleep than the care-receiver, the control unit may give greater weight to the sleep stage of the care-provider, relative to the sleep stage of the care-receiver. (Thus, for example, the control unit may alert the care-provider if the care-provider is awake, even if the care-receiver is in a deep sleep.)”).
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinar et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0058429) and further in view of Shouldice et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0151603).
Regarding claim 4, while Shinar obviates determinations that the recommendation(s) was/were followed (see claim 1), Shinar does not disclose that the method further comprises: generating a subsequent recommendation based on updating the second target outcome; and responsive to the determining that the recommendation was not followed, providing an offer of a reward if the recommendation is subsequently followed. Shouldice et al. (hereinafter Shouldice) teaches a computer-implemented method for deriving sleep information such as sleep scores and environmental conditions during sleep (see Abstract), as likewise disclosed by Shinar, wherein the method further comprises repetitive detections [0519], and responsive to the determining that the recommendation was not followed, providing an offer of a reward if the recommendation is subsequently followed ([0520] and [0571]/“In Advice State”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an offer of a reward if the sleep recommendations are subsequently followed, as taught by Shouldice, in a method for evaluating and controlling a waking/sleep cycle of a subject as suggested by Shinar, as Shinar recognizes that certain phases of the sleep cycle are more opportune for waking a subject ([0616]-[0617]), and Shouldice teaches that following such advice corrects behaviors in a subject [0520], resulting in improved sleep ([0505] and [0523]).
Regarding claim 17, while Shinar obviates determinations that the recommendation(s) was/were followed (see claim 1), Shinar does not disclose that the method further comprises: generating a subsequent recommendation based on updating the second target outcome; and responsive to the determining that the recommendation was not followed, providing an offer of a reward if the recommendation is subsequently followed. Shouldice et al. (hereinafter Shouldice) teaches a computer-implemented method for deriving sleep information such as sleep scores and environmental conditions during sleep (see Abstract), as likewise disclosed by Shinar, wherein the method further comprises repetitive detections [0519], and responsive to the determining that the recommendation was not followed, providing an offer of a reward if the recommendation is subsequently followed ([0520] and [0571]/“In Advice State”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an offer of a reward if the sleep recommendations are subsequently followed, as taught by Shouldice, in a method for evaluating and controlling a waking/sleep cycle of a subject as suggested by Shinar, as Shinar recognizes that certain phases of the sleep cycle are more opportune for waking a subject ([0616]-[0617]), and Shouldice teaches that following such advice corrects behaviors in a subject [0520], resulting in improved sleep ([0505] and [0523]).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 31 October 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application No. 18607335 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 October 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 3, 12, 15-17, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 October 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the amendments to claim 1 amount to a practical application of the technology that results in determining that following the recommendation improves sleep of the second target subject, however, as noted above, the determination can be made by a practitioner observing the target subject, or the determination can be made by the target subject observing data collected following a sleep cycle or following awakening.
Applicant’s arguments filed 28 October 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) citing Shouldice (‘603); and claims 5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Shouldice (‘603) in view of Matsuoka (‘872) have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above under 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Shinar (‘429); and 35 U.S.C. 103 citing Shinar (‘429) in view of Shouldice (‘603).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE HOPKINS MATTHEWS whose telephone number is (571)272-9058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Charles A Marmor, II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791