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 Claims
This action is in response to the application as filed on August 11, 2022. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification at ¶173 includes the language “the user device (100)”; however, this should read --the user device (300)--. Appropriate correction is required.
The specification at ¶178 includes the language “the user device (200)”; however, this should read -- the user device (300)--. In addition, the paragraph designates both the sleep planning system and the server as reference character “100.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 recites “transmitting signal or data.” This should read --transmitting a signal or data--. In addition, the claim previously recites data (e.g., first and second data). Therefore, it is unclear whether the “data” mentioned is the first data, a second data, both or other data. In addition, at line 4 the claim reads “The recommended”; this should read --the recommended--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The 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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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. In this instance claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, recite generic place holders “generator” and “unit” with recited functions, such as “determining a sleep pressure based on a first user data including a personal schedule obtained from a user device and generating a recommended sleep schedule based on the sleep pressure” and “updating the personal schedule of a calendar of a user device with the recommended sleep schedule or providing information related to the recommended sleep schedule to the user device without any corresponding structure.”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this instance the generator corresponds to a software component 204 of the optimizer 200 software and the output processing unit corresponds to a software component 208 of the optimizer 200 software, both of which are implemented by a processor 110 of the server 100.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
In re claims 3 and 13, recites the terms “a relatively large value” and “a relatively low value.” These terms are subjective and ambiguous and not defined by the claim. Moreover, the specification does not provide an objective standard for ascertaining the meaning of these terms such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
In re claim 4, the claim recites the limitations “the user's wearable device” at lines 2-3, “the user's awake time” at line 5, and “the second user data” at line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In re claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “the user's circadian rhythm” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 7, the claim recites the limitations “the sleep pressures of a certain period” at lines 3-4, and “the circadian rhythm the sleep drive” at last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In re claim 8, the claim recites “receiving a signal or data for a change in the personal schedule from a dashboard combined with the calendar of the user device,” at line 3. The language “combined” in the context of the claim is unclear. For example, is the signal/data received from both the dashboard and the calendar or is the dashboard and calendar combined in some manner. If the dashboard and calendar are combined, then it is unclear what is meant by this with the context of the claim. In addition, there is not description of this term the in the specification. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claim.
In re claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “the user's wearable device” at line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 14, the claim recites the limitation “the sleep pressures of a certain period” at lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 15, the claim recites the limitation “the circadian rhythm the sleep drive” at the last two lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 16, the claim recites the limitations “the user's awake time,” at line 3, and “the second user data” at line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
In re claim 19, the claim recites the limitation “the sleep schedule” at lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In re claim 20, the claim recites the limitation “the schedules” at line. There is a lack of clear antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as the claim previously recites different types of schedules and it is unclear which of these schedules is “the schedules.”
Claims 5, 6, 9, 10, and 12-20 depend from a rejected base claim, and therefore are rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
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.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system and a method. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, “The present disclosure relates generally to a sleep planning system that considers dynamically changing constraints and is applicable to real, everyday life, and more particularly, to a personalized sleep planning system and sleep schedule creating method therefor, that determines and recommends optimal sleep and wake/wake-up times by using a user's schedule and physical/physiological states information..” (par. 2).
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A personalized sleep planning system considering dynamically changing constraints, comprising:
a recommended sleep schedule generator for determining a sleep pressure based on a first user data including a personal schedule obtained from a user device and generating a recommended sleep schedule based on the sleep pressure, with respect to the constraints based on the personal schedule; and
an output processing unit for updating the personal schedule of a calendar of a user device with the recommended sleep schedule or providing information related to the recommended sleep schedule to the user device..
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea, with substantially identical features in claim 11. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 further define the abstract idea such as by defining the schedule generated. Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity and/or mental processes. In addition, certain claims recite mathematical concepts. The claims recite operations and steps of planning a sleep schedule of an individual. This activity is drawn to organizing human activity because it manages the personal behavior of an individual. Furthermore, the operations and or steps can be performed in the mind of a human and/or with the aid of pencil and paper. In addition, claims 7, 14, and 15 recite a mathematical concept in the form of mathematical formulas.
Managing an individual’s personal sleep schedule is an activity directed to organizing personal behavior of the user. The activity is managed using generic computers recited at a high level of generality, and, therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract concept sub-grouping of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" including teaching and following rules or instructions, for example, an instructor or sleep counselor advising a client of an optimal or personalized sleep schedule.
In addition, the claims also recite a mental process. But for the recitation of the recitation of a generic computer (e.g., a system, a user device, and a processing unit), nothing in the claimed operations/steps precludes the recitations from practically being performed in the mind. For example determining a sleep pressure based on a first user data including a personal schedule obtained from a user device and generating a recommended sleep schedule based on the sleep pressure, with respect to the constraints based on the personal schedule can be performed or formulated in the mind a counselor or teacher reading data and thinking/calculating the sleep pressure, thinking of the resulting schedule (and or calculating it with pen and paper) and updating a schedule can be writing the results into a user’s calendar. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of recitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Finally with regard to claims 7, 14, and 15, the claims also recite mathematical formulas, which fall within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity, mental processes and/or mathematical concepts.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
While certain physical elements (i.e., elements that are not an abstract idea) are present in the claims, such features do not affect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. Similarly, the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of these physical elements. In recent cases, the CAFC has made it clear that the term “practical application” means providing a technical solution to a technical problem in computers or networks per se. To be patent-eligible, the claimed invention must improve the computer as a computer or network as a network. Applicant’s invention does not meet these requirements. Applicant’s invention uses computers and software make calculations on data and provide a result. This does not improve the computer qua computer. Instead, Applicant’s invention uses generic computers as a tool to implement the abstract idea. As such, the claims are not eligible under Section 101.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements or combination of elements other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: a system having a computer configured to perform the abstract idea.
These elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional computer components. The use of computers to make calculations and present the output of the calculations represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and/or constitutes extra-solution activity. As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such computer functions cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The claimed features providing outputs represent extra-solution activities are not particular are recited at a high level of generality.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic computer components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of making judgments by a generic computer. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic computer. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0215541 by Kalyan et al. (“Kalyan”).
In re claim 1, Kalyan discloses a personalized sleep planning system considering dynamically changing constraints [Fig. 1, ¶¶15,16], comprising: a recommended sleep schedule generator for determining a sleep pressure based on a first user data including a personal schedule obtained from a user device and generating a recommended sleep schedule based on the sleep pressure, with respect to the constraints based on the personal schedule [Fig. 1, ¶¶18, 29, 30, 31, 35-37, among others, describe a server is to generate a sleep availability rating (sleep pressure) by analyzing a sleep activity log managed by the remote server. The sleep availability rating is a quantified measure of the need for sleep at any given time. The server uses the physiological data to identify when the user is asleep or awake, and to populate the sleep activity log. Further, the remote server then correlates an over accumulation of, or excessive need for, sleep with a circadian phase of the user to determine the sleep availability rating. The server generates a scheduling availability rating by analyzing a current-date-and-time in relation to a user calendar managed by the remote server. The scheduling availability rating quantifies the amount of time the user has between the current-date-and-time and a scheduled engagement]; and an output processing unit for updating the personal schedule of a calendar of a user device with the recommended sleep schedule or providing information related to the recommended sleep schedule to the user device [¶¶36-39, 42 providing information to user based on output of the decision algorithm on a user device, such as a smartphone].
In re claim 2, Kaylan discloses the recommended sleep schedule generator generates a recommended sleep schedule based on the sleep pressure which additionally reflects circadian rhythm [Fig. 1, ¶¶29, 35 describe the process takes into account the circadian phase of the user].
In re claim 4, Kaylan discloses a second user data including heart rate or number of steps is provided from the user's wearable device [¶¶37, 39 describe the ability to sleep aspect is evaluated by the decision algorithm 4 using physiological sensors 5, e.g. heart-rate and heart-rate variability including wearable devices], and the recommended sleep schedule generator determines the sleep pressure based on a central nervous system fatigue model reflecting the user's awake time obtained from the first user data and the second user data, amount of physical activity and intensity [Fig. 1, ¶¶20, 29, 35, 37, 38, 41, describe a two phase model that include users awake time from a sleep activity log and determining sleep-homeostasis including awake time and user activity (e.g., exercise)].
In re claim 5, Kaylan discloses wherein the recommended sleep schedule generator is configured to determine the sleep pressure based on a sleep pressure model according to a central nervous system fatigue level used in the central nervous system fatigue model and the user's circadian rhythm [Fig.1 #2 ¶¶20, 29-38, 41, describe using sleep/wake regulation model that considers both circadian and sleep-homeostasis (fatigue) factors to predict the need for sleep at a given time].
In re claim 6, Kaylan discloses the recommended sleep schedule generating unit uses the sleep pressure model and generates an alternative recommended sleep schedule and sleep pressure related information according to the alternative recommended sleep schedule, based on the user data input according to the user's personal schedule and physical condition which are dynamically changing [¶¶20, 29-38, 41, describe determining recommended sleep schedule based on dynamically changing factors such as user activity and amount of sleep at any given instant, as the they system is constantly updating the schedule based on these changing factors it generates an alternative schedule].
In re claim 11, Kaylan discloses a method of generating a sleep schedule performed by an optimizer of a personalized sleep planning system that considers dynamically changing constraints [Fig. 1, ¶18], comprising a step of determining sleep pressure based on a first user data including a personal schedule obtained from a user device and a second user data including heart rate or step count obtained from the user's wearable device [Fig. 1, ¶¶20, 29, 35, 37-39, among others, describe a server is to generate a sleep availability rating (sleep pressure) by analyzing a sleep activity log managed by the remote server. The sleep availability rating is a quantified measure of the need for sleep at any given time. The ability to sleep aspect is evaluated by the decision algorithm 4 using physiological sensors 5, e.g. heart-rate and heart-rate variability including wearable devices], and a step of generating a recommended sleep schedule based on the sleep pressure with respect to the constraints based on the personal schedule [Fig. 1, ¶¶18, 29, 30, 31, 35-39, 41, among others, describe a server is to generate a sleep availability rating (sleep pressure) by analyzing a sleep activity log managed by the remote server. The sleep availability rating is a quantified measure of the need for sleep at any given time. The server uses the physiological data to identify when the user is asleep or awake, and to populate the sleep activity log. Further, the remote server then correlates an over accumulation of, or excessive need for, sleep with a circadian phase of the user to determine the sleep availability rating. The server generates a scheduling availability rating by analyzing a current-date-and-time in relation to a user calendar managed by the remote server. The scheduling availability rating quantifies the amount of time the user has between the current-date-and-time and a scheduled engagement].
In re claim 12, Kaylan discloses generating the recommended sleep schedule generates the recommended sleep schedule based on the sleep pressure which additionally reflects a circadian rhythm [Fig. 1, ¶¶29, 35 describe the process takes into account the circadian phase of the user].
In re claim 16, Kaylan discloses determining the sleep pressure determines the sleep pressure based on the user's awake time, and a central nervous system fatigue model reflecting physical activity and intensity, obtained from the first user data and the second user data [Fig. 1, ¶¶20, 29, 35, 37, 38, 41, describe a two phase model that include users awake time from a sleep activity log and determining sleep-homeostasis including awake time and user activity (e.g., exercise)].
In re claim 17, Kaylan discloses determining the sleep pressure determines the sleep pressure based on a sleep pressure model according to a central nervous system fatigue level used in the central nervous system fatigue model and the user's circadian rhythm [Fig.1 #2 ¶¶20, 29-38, 41, describe using sleep/wake regulation model that considers both circadian and sleep-homeostasis (fatigue) factors to predict the need for sleep at a given time].
In re claim 18, Kaylan discloses generating the recommended sleep schedule uses the sleep pressure model and generates an alternative recommended sleep schedule and sleep pressure related information according to the alternative recommended sleep schedule, based on the user data input according to the user's personal schedule and physical condition which are dynamically changing [¶¶20, 29-38, 41, describe determining recommended sleep schedule based on dynamically changing factors such as user activity and amount of sleep at any given instant, as the they system is constantly updating the schedule based on these changing factors it generates an alternative schedule].
In re claim 19, Kaylan discloses comprising a step of transmitting signal or data including the recommended sleep schedule to the user device, wherein the recommended sleep schedule is used for generating or updating the personal schedule including the sleep schedule, on a calendar of the user device [¶¶18, 36-39, 42 describe generating a scheduling availability rating with the remote server by analyzing a current-date-and-time in relation to a user calenda providing information to user based on output of the decision algorithm transmitting output to a user device, such as a smartphone].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyan in view of US Publication No. 2013/0234823 by Kahn et al. (“Kahn”).
In re claims 3 and 13, Kaylan discloses the recommended sleep schedule according to the circadian rhythm includes: a bedtime generated when the sleep pressure is greater than or equal to a first value, a relatively large value, and a wake-up time generated when the sleep pressure is less than or equal to a second value, a relatively low value [¶¶16, 29-39, describe generating a sleep schedule (bedtime/wakeup) based on two process model that provided input to the activity recommender. The system determined significant buildup of sleep pressure(a relatively large value) by the time the user is scheduled to go to bed].
Kaylan lacks, but Kahn teaches a unit time of a single sleep schedule consisting of the bedtime and the wake-up time is set as an approximate value referenced on 90 minutes or as a preset error of more or less than 90 minutes [Fig. 5, ¶¶60-76 describe a full sleep cycle is generally 90 minutes and determining and adjusting the wake-up based on the length of the 90 minute cycle].
Kaylan and Kahn are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving user sleep. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kaylan to include scheduling based on an approximate value referenced on 90 minutes, as taught by Kahn, in order to improve user experience, for example, by attempting to enable a user to have more a refreshing sleep period by ensuring that the user gets as much deep sleep as possible, while getting sufficient REM sleep, see, e.g., ¶76.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyan in view of US Publication No. 2020/0077942 by Youngblood et al. (“Youngblood”).
In re claim 8, Kaylan discloses further comprising an input processing unit for receiving a signal or data for a change in the personal schedule [¶¶16, 29-39, describe input of various types for activity recommender and decision algorithm that affect the user’s schedule]. Kaylan lacks, but Youngblood teaches a dashboard combined with the calendar of the user device [Figs. 30-32 ¶¶183-186 show a dashboard combined with calendar of a user device].
Kaylan and Youngblood are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving user sleep. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kaylan to include combined dashboard of a user device, as taught by Youngblood, in order to improve user experience, for example, increasing expedience by providing interface with additional information in one location.
In re claim 9, Kaylan discloses a recommendation management unit delivering another recommended sleep schedule to the user device based on the change in the personal schedule [¶¶16, 29-39, describe generating, adjusting, updating a sleep schedule (when sleep schedule is updated it becomes another schedule) including based on personal calendar/schedule and user’s changing activities].
Kaylan lacks, but Youngblood teaches storing data in a cache [¶¶236].
Kaylan and Youngblood are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving user sleep. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kaylan to store data in a cache, as taught by Youngblood, in order to reduce latency and improve overall system responsiveness, for example, by speeding up performance by storing frequently accessed data and instructions closer to the CPU, reducing the need to access slower main memory (RAM).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kalyan in view of Youngblood and further in view of US Publication No. 2021/0162164 by Lockley et al. (“Lockley”).
In re claims 10 and 20, Kaylan discloses the recommended sleep schedule generating unit generates a plurality of different recommended sleep schedules or alternative sleep schedules [¶¶16, 29-39, describe generating, adjusting, updating a sleep schedule (when sleep schedule is updated it becomes another schedule) including based on personal calendar/schedule and user’s changing activities].
Kaylan lacks, but Lockley teaches a changeable range of the personal schedule in the user device for different recommended sleep schedules or alternative sleep schedules [¶¶10,61-69, among others describe a changeable range according to user schedule for adjusting sleep schedule].
Kaylan and Lockley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving user sleep. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kaylan to provide changeable range of the personal schedule in the user device for different recommended sleep schedules or alternative sleep schedules, as taught by Lockley, in order to improve user experience, for example, by adjusting schedule for travel and other conditions affecting sleep patterns, see, e.g., ¶53.
Kaylan lacks, but Youngblood teaches storing data in a cache [¶¶236].
Kaylan and Youngblood are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of improving user sleep. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kaylan to store data in a cache, as taught by Youngblood, in order to reduces latency and improves overall system responsiveness, for example, by speeding up performance by storing frequently accessed data and instructions closer to the CPU, reducing the need to access slower main memory (RAM).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
