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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to the provisional US Application No. 63/271138, filed 10/23/2021. However, provisional Application No. 63/271138 does not provide sufficient support for the instant claim elements such as “estimating, by the light-exposure model, values of spectral parameters based on the place data”, and “returning, by the light exposure model to the first mobile app, estimated spectral parameter values”. Thus, the Effective Filing Date (EFD) assigned to each of the claims 1-15 is the filing date of the instant claims, 06/19/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed herein.
Drawings
The drawings filed 06/19/2022 are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [24], in line 2, “measure: ) Intensity” should read “measure: 1) Intensity”
In paragraph [53], in lines 10 and 12, “individuals” should read “individual’s”
In paragraph [59], in line 3, “individuals” should read “individuals’”
In paragraph [69], in line 2, “individuals” should read “individual’s”
In paragraph [70], line 2, “e.g” should read “e.g.”
In paragraph [70], line 6, “etc” should read “etc.”
In paragraph [71], line 6, “etc” should read “etc.”
In paragraph [73], line 2, “etc” should read “etc.”
In paragraph [73], line 8, “persons eye” should read “person’s eye”
In paragraph [86], line 15, “exposure threshholds” should read “exposure thres
In paragraph [93], line 4, “there maybe be opportunities” should read “there may be
In paragraph [103], line 5, “relavent” should read “relevant”
In paragraph [126], “simultation” should read “simul
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 15, “light exposure” should read “light-exposure” to conform with the other spellings of light-exposure within the claims
In claim 9, line 4, “prroviding second spectral estimates” should read “providing second spectral estimates”
In claim 9, line 5, “circadian servicdes system” should read “circadian servic
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 8 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.
With respect to claim 5, the claim recites the limitation of “returning to the third mobile app”. The claim is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the third mobile app”. Claim 3, from which claim 5 depends, recites a “second mobile app” and “the second mobile app”. This ambiguity would be corrected if claim 5 was dependent upon claim 4, which does recite “a third mobile app”.
With respect to claim 8, the claim recites the limitation of “the sensed spectra data”. The claim is indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for “the sensed spectra data”. The claim does recite “sensed spectral data”. Thus, it is unclear if the spectra data is referring to the sensed spectral data or, instead, a different dataset.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to an abstract idea of mental steps, mathematic concepts, or a natural law without significantly more.
The MPEP at MPEP 2106.03 sets forth steps for identifying eligible subject matter:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of
matter?
(2A)(1) Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature,
a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
(2A)(2) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the
judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial
exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept?
With respect to step (1): Yes, the claims are directed to a process, a system, and a persistent media.
With respect to step (2A)(1): The claims are directed to abstract ideas of mathematical concepts and mental process.
“Claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection” (MPEP 2106.04). Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations), certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/judging and organizing information (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Laws of nature or natural phenomena include naturally occurring principles/relations that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature (MPEP 2106(b)).
Mathematical concepts recited in claims 1, 6, and 11:
estimating, by the light-exposure model, values of spectral parameters based on the place data
returning, by the light exposure model to the first mobile app, estimated spectral parameter values
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 recite additional steps that either are directed to abstract ideas or further limit the judicial exceptions in independent claims 1, 6, and 11, and as such, are further directed to abstract ideas. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that individually and in combination constitute abstract ideas. The relevant recitations are:
Claims 2, 7, and 12: “the light exposure model is included in cloud-based circadian services, the circadian services providing recommendations or instructions regarding circadian light exposure to the first mobile app”
Claims 3, 8, and 13: “updating the light-exposure model based on spectral and place data received from the second mobile app”
Claims 4, 9, and 14: “returning, by the light exposure model to the third mobile app, estimated spectral parameter values”
Claims 5, 10, and 15: “returning to the third mobile app, by the circadian services, recommendations or instructions regarding circadian light exposure”
The abstract ideas in the claims are evaluated under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover mental processes and mathematic concepts because the claims recite no more than a model analyzing received data to perform an estimate, and possible generate a recommendation for a user, thus mathematical concepts of analyzing data.
With respect to step (2A)(2): The claims must therefore be examined further to determine whether they integrate that abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The claimed additional elements are analyzed alone or in combination to determine if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exception, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite the following additional elements that are not abstract ideas:
receiving received data, the received data including first place data acquired by a first user device set on which the first mobile app executes
a system
persistent media encoded with code executed by a processor
The step of receiving first place data gathers the data from the user on which the judicial exceptions are performed, and is thus directed to a step of data gathering. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The system and persistent media are directed to generic computer elements. Hence, these are interpreted as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc. ... are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 13, and 14 are directed to steps of data gathering and sensors that gather the data on which the judicial exceptions are performed. Thus, the dependent claims are directed to data gathering element. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
None of these dependent claims recite additional elements, alone or in combination, which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Lastly, the claims have been evaluated with respect to step (2B): Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims lack a specific inventive concept. Under said analysis, Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As set forth in the MPEP at 2106.05(d)(I), determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to claims 1, 6, and 11: The additional elements of a system, a mobile app, persistent media comprising code executed by a processor, and receiving data including first place data do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art to Wahl et al. (“How much light do you get?: estimating daily light exposure using smartphones”, ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, published September 2014) discloses that in free-living circadian phase studies, light is exposure is measured using wrist-worn light sensors (page 43, column 2, paragraph 2) and that the CamNtech MotionWatch 8 is a wrist-worn light and activity monitor which is a population measurement device in circadian rhythm studies (page 45, column 1, Section “Study Methodology”, paragraph 2). Furthermore, as exemplified in the MPEP at 2106.05(f) with reference to Alice Corp. 573 US at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983 “claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible”. Therefore, the device constitutes no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP 2105(b)I-III). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claims 3, 8, and 13: The additional element of receiving spectral data and second place data from a second mobile app running on a second user device set comprising a spectral sensor does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art to Wahl et al. discloses that in free-living circadian phase studies, light is exposure is measured using wrist-worn light sensors (page 43, column 2, paragraph 2) and that the CamNtech MotionWatch 8 is a wrist-worn light and activity monitor which is a population measurement device in circadian rhythm studies (page 45, column 1, Section “Study Methodology”, paragraph 2). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
With respect to claims 4, 9, and 14: The additional element of receiving brightness data and third place data from a third mobile app running on a third user device set comprising a brightness sensor does not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The prior art to Wahl et al. discloses that in free-living circadian phase studies, light is exposure is measured using wrist-worn light sensors (page 43, column 2, paragraph 2) and that the CamNtech MotionWatch 8 is a wrist-worn light and activity monitor which is a population measurement device in circadian rhythm studies (page 45, column 1, Section “Study Methodology”, paragraph 2). As such, it is recognized that these additional limitations are routine, well understood, and conventional in the art. These limitations do not improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field, they do not require or set forth a particular machine, they do not affect a transformation of matter, nor do they provide a non-conventional or unconventional step. As such, these limitations fail to rise to the level of significantly more.
In combination, the collection or generation of the data, acted upon by the judicial exception, fail to rise to the level of significantly more. The data gathering steps provide the data for the judicial exception. No non-routine step or element has clearly been identified.
The claims have all been examined to identify the presence of one or more judicial exceptions. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether the additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Each additional limitation in the claims has been addressed, alone and in combination, to determine whether those additional limitations provide an inventive concept which provides significantly more than those exceptions. Individually, the limitations of the claims and the claims as a whole have been found lacking.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wahl et al. (“How much light do you get?: estimating daily light exposure using smartphones”, ACM International Symposium on Wearable Computers, published September 2014).
Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, Wahl et al. teaches a circadian light-tracking process comprising:
receiving, by a light-exposure model and from a first mobile app, received data, the received data including first place data acquired by a first user device set on which the first mobile app executes (page 44, column 1, Section “Feature extraction”);
estimating, by the light-exposure model, values of spectral parameters based on place data (Figure 1); and
returning, by the light-exposure model to the first mobile app, estimated spectral parameter values (Figure 1).
Furthermore, Wahl et al. teaches the process being performed using a smartphone-based system (Abstract), and thus Wahl et al. inherently teaches persistent media encoded with code executed by a processor.
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.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wahl et al., as applied to claims 1, 6, and 11 in the 102 rejection above.
Regarding claims 2, 7, and 12, the claims are directed to the light-exposure model being included in cloud-based circadian services, the circadian services providing recommendations or instructions regarding light exposure to the first mobile app. Wahl et al. teaches the process of claim 1, the system of claim 6, and the media of claim 11. Wahl et al. also teaches that the exact illuminance necessary to modify the circadian clock is widely discussed in literature and that it is essential to assess light exposure continuously throughout the day to identify its timing and coarse level (page 43, column 1, Section “Introduction”). Wahl et al. further discussed previous research done into minimizing influence of jet-lag on the circadian rhythm and existing technologies to measure and track sleeping behavior (page 44, column 1, paragraphs 2 and 3).
Even though Wahl et al. does not explicitly teach providing recommendations or instructions to the first mobile app, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate instructions regarding light exposure based on the estimates of the light-exposure model because light exposure is a major cue for the human circadian rhythm and affecting the sleep-wave cycle, and reduced sleep effectives affects performance, memory, alertness, gastrointestinal functions, and other bodily functions (page 43, column 1, Section “Introduction”). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate recommendations adjusting the light exposure in order to improve sleep effectiveness.
Regarding claims 3, 8, and 13, the claims are directed to receiving, by the circadian services from a second mobile app running on a second user device set, spectral data and second place data; and updating the light-exposure model based on spectral and place data received from the second mobile app. Wahl et al. teaches the process of claim 2, the system of claim 7, and the media of 12. Wahl et al. teaches that users also wore a wrist-worn sensor (page 43, column 2, paragraph 5). Wahl et al. teaches that the wrist-worn sensor was a CamNtech MotionWatch 8 which is a popular measurement device in circadian rhythm studies that measured light and activity (page 45, column 1, Section “Study Methodology”, paragraph 2). Wahl et al. teaches that the measurements of the MotionWatch were added to provide a baseline estimate for the model (page 45, column 2, Section “Evaluation procedure”).
Regarding claims 4, 9, and 14, the claims are directed to receiving, by the circadian services from a third mobile app running on a third user device set, brightness data and third place data; and returning, by the light exposure model to the third mobile app, estimated spectral parameter values. Wahl et al. teaches the process of claim 3, the system of claim 8, and the media of 13. Wahl et al. teaches a user device, such as a smartphone, comprising a brightness sensor that measured an illuminance larger than zero lux, and GPS services to provide data to the classifier to provide spectral estimates to the user (page 44, column 2; and Figure 1).
Regarding claims 5, 10, and 15, the claims are directed to returning to the third mobile app, by the circadian services, recommendations or instructions regarding circadian light exposure. Wahl et al. teaches the process of claim 3, the system of claim 8, and the media of claim 14. Wahl et al. also teaches that the exact illuminance necessary to modify the circadian clock is widely discussed in literature and that it is essential to assess light exposure continuously throughout the day to identify its timing and coarse level (page 43, column 1, Section “Introduction”). Wahl et al. further discussed previous research done into minimizing influence of jet-lag on the circadian rhythm and existing technologies to measure and track sleeping behavior (page 44, column 1, paragraphs 2 and 3).
Even though Wahl et al. does not explicitly teach providing recommendations or instructions to the first mobile app, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate instructions regarding light exposure based on the estimates of the light-exposure model because light exposure is a major cue for the human circadian rhythm and affecting the sleep-wave cycle, and reduced sleep effectives affects performance, memory, alertness, gastrointestinal functions, and other bodily functions (page 43, column 1, Section “Introduction”). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate recommendations adjusting the light exposure in order to improve sleep effectiveness.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emilie A Smith whose telephone number is (571)272-7543. The examiner can normally be reached 9am - 5pm.
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, Larry D Riggs can be reached at (571)270-3062. 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.
/E.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686