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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 12, 22 and 26 have been amended. Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8-11 and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor et al. (Lawlor; US Pub No. 2022/0105307 A1) in view of Baek et al. (Baek; US Pub No. 2018/0207393 A1).
As per claim 1, Lawlor teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, at a first application associated with a user device (paragraph [0014], lines 25-33), physiological data associated with a user that is collected via a set of sensors of a wearable device while the user is sleeping (paragraph [0014], lines 1-15 & 34-36);
identifying, by the first application, sleep staging information for the user while the user is sleeping based at least in part on the physiological data (paragraph [0026], lines 1-7; paragraph [0014]: physiological data collected by wearable monitoring device transmitted to a user’s smartphone);
receiving, at the first application and from a second application associated with the user device, information indicating a wakeup time restriction for the user (paragraph [0026], lines 1-12);
determining, by the first application, a wakeup time for the user based at least in part on the sleep staging information and the wakeup time restriction for the user from the second application (paragraph [0026])… and
alerting the user to wake up in accordance with the wakeup time (paragraph [0026], lines 17-20).
Lawlor does not expressly teach wherein, determining the wakeup time for the user comprises:
identifying, based at least in part on the sleep staging information, whether the user has entered one of a light sleep stage or a rapid eye movement sleep stage within a range of time that is relative to a scheduled time associated with the wakeup time restriction; and
determining the wakeup time to occur prior to the scheduled time based at least in part on identifying that the user has entered one of the light sleep stage or the rapid eye movement sleep stage within the range of time.
Baek teaches wherein, determining the wakeup time for the user comprises:
identifying, based at least in part on the sleep staging information, whether the user has entered one of a light sleep stage or a rapid eye movement sleep stage within a range of time (Fig. 3, REM sleep stage before morning call, morning call setup time; paragraph [0065]) that is relative to a scheduled time associated with the wakeup time restriction (paragraph [0078]; paragraph [0083]: predetermined time before scheduled wake-up time); and
determining the wakeup time to occur prior to the scheduled time based at least in part on identifying that the user has entered one of the light sleep stage or the rapid eye movement sleep stage within the range of time (Fig. 3; paragraphs [0065], [0078] & [0083]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the sleep stage determination as taught by Baek, since Baek states in paragraph [0007] that such a modification would result in providing a method of controlling a sleep environment for an entire sleep process from when a user prepares for sleep until the user reaches a normal state after wake-up in order to provide a more effective and convenient sleep environment to a user in a smart home environment.
As per claim 2, Lawlor in view of Baek further teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
identifying an alarm set by the user via the user device, wherein the information indicating the wakeup time restriction comprises a time associated with the alarm (Lawlor, paragraph [0026], lines 11-12).
As per claim 4, Lawlor in view of Baek further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the wakeup time for the user further comprises:
determining an optimum time for the user to wake up based at least in part on historical sleep data collected by the first application, wherein the historical sleep data comprises historical wakeup times from one or more previous days, an amount of sleep from the one or more previous days, a quality of sleep from the one or more previous days, or a combination thereof (Lawlor, paragraph [0026], lines 7-20).
As per claim 8, Lawlor in view of Baek further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein alerting the user to wake up further comprises:
alerting the user to gradually wake up based at least in part on the wakeup time by gradually increasing the alerting over time (Lawlor, paragraph [0026]).
As per claim 9, Lawlor in view of Baek further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein alerting the user to wake up further comprises:
sounding an alarm prior to the wakeup time, or at the wakeup time, or both (Lawlor, paragraph [0026], lines 8-20).
As per claim 10, Lawlor in view of Baek further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein alerting the user to wake up further comprises:
turning on a light prior to the wakeup time, or at the wakeup time, or both (Lawlor, paragraph [0026], lines 14-17).
As per claim 11, Lawlor in view of Baek further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein receiving the physiological data further comprises:
receiving temperature data, motion data, heart rate data, or a combination thereof via the set of sensors of the wearable device (Lawlor, paragraph [0014], lines 1-15 & 34-36), wherein the sleep staging information is identified based at least in part on the temperature data, the motion data, the heart rate data, or a combination thereof (Lawlor, paragraph [0026], lines 1-7; paragraph [0014]: physiological data collected by wearable monitoring device transmitted to a user’s smartphone).
As per claim 22, (see rejection of claim 1 above) an apparatus, comprising:
a processor (paragraph [0007]);
memory coupled with the processor (paragraph [0007]); and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to (paragraph [0007]):
receive, at a first application associated with a user device, physiological data associated with a user that is collected via a set of sensors of a wearable device while the user is sleeping;
identify, by the first application, sleep staging information for the user while the user is sleeping based at least in part on the physiological data;
receive, at the first application and from a second application associated with the user device, information indicating a wakeup time restriction for the user;
determine, by the first application, a wakeup time for the user based at least in part on the sleep staging information and the wakeup time restriction for the user from the second application, wherein, to determine the wakeup time for the user, the processor causes the apparatus to:
identify, based at least in part on the sleep staging information, whether the user has entered one of a light sleep stage or a rapid eye movement sleep stage within a range of time that is relative to a scheduled time associated with the wakeup time restriction; and
determine the wakeup time to occur prior to the scheduled time based at least in part on identifying that the user has entered one of the light sleep stage or the rapid eye movement sleep stage within the range of time; and
alert the user to wake up in accordance with the wakeup time.
As per claim 23, (see rejection of claim 2 above) the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify an alarm set by the user via the user device, wherein the information indicating the wakeup time restriction comprises a time associated with the alarm.
As per claim 24, (see rejection of claim 4 above) the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the instructions to determine the wakeup time for the user are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
determine an optimum time for the user to wake up based at least in part on historical sleep data collected by the first application, wherein the historical sleep data comprises historical wakeup times from one or more previous days, an amount of sleep from the one or more previous days, a quality of sleep from the one or more previous days, or a combination thereof.
As per claim 25, (see rejection of claim 11 above) the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the instructions to receive the physiological data are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
receive temperature data, motion data, heart rate data, or a combination thereof via the set of sensors of the wearable device, wherein the sleep staging information is identified based at least in part on the temperature data, the motion data, the heart rate data, or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor in view Baek as applied above, and further in view of Kahn et al. (Kahn; US Patent No. 10,842,968 B1).
As per claim 3, Lawlor in view of Baek teaches the method of claim 1.
Lawlor in view of Baek does not expressly teach wherein the second application comprises a calendar application, and the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises a start time associated with one or more meetings, one or more appointments, one or more to-do items, or a combination thereof stored in the calendar application.
Kahn teaches wherein the second application comprises a calendar application, and the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises a start time associated with one or more meetings, one or more appointments, one or more to-do items, or a combination thereof stored in the calendar application (col. 12, lines 49-63).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement synchronizing a wakeup time with a user’s calendar as taught by Kahn, since Kahn states in column 12, lines 49-63 that such a modification would result in ensuring a user is fully awakened by a desired awake time by deriving an optimal awakening time or window that would allow a user to accomplish their scheduled calendar items.
As per claim 5, Lawlor in view of Baek teaches the method of claim 1.
Lawlor in view of Baek does not expressly teach wherein the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises future travel plans, past travel, current travel, changes to time due to daylight savings, upcoming events, an age of the user, a gender of the user, a chronotype of the user, a circadian rhythm of the user, or a combination thereof.
Kahn teaches wherein the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises future travel plans, past travel, current travel, changes to time due to daylight savings, upcoming events, an age of the user, a gender of the user, a chronotype of the user, a circadian rhythm of the user, or a combination thereof (col. 12, lines 52-56).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement identifying a user’s commute time to a meeting as taught by Kahn, since Kahn states in column 12, lines 49-63 that such a modification would result in ensuring a user is fully awakened by a desired awake time by deriving an optimal awakening time or window that would allow a user to accomplish their scheduled calendar items.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor in view of Baek as applied above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (Sasaki; US Pub No. 2013/0252591 A1).
As per claim 6, Lawlor in view of Baek teaches the method of claim 1.
Lawlor in view of Baek does not expressly teach wherein the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises habits of the user collected by the second application.
Sasaki teaches wherein the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises habits of the user collected by the second application (paragraph [0028], lines 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the smart alarm device as taught by Sasaki, since Sasaki states in paragraph [0028] that such a modification would result in a user not needing to set an alarm and instead the alarm being automatically set based on previously tracked user habits.
As per claim 7, Lawlor in view of Baek, and further in view of Sasaki, further teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the habits of the user comprise a work schedule, eating habits, exercise habits, sleep habits on work nights, sleep habits on non-work nights, or a combination thereof (Sasaki, paragraph [0039], lines 10-12: time a user is supposed to arrive at work).
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15, 21, 26, 27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor in view of Lopes et al. (Lopes; US Pub No. 2023/0037360 A1).
As per claim 12, Lawlor teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, at a first application associated with a user device (paragraph [0014], lines 25-33), physiological data associated with a user that is collected via a set of sensors of a wearable device (paragraph [0014], lines 1-15 & 34-36);
receiving, at the first application and from a second application associated with the user device, information indicating a wakeup time restriction for the user (paragraph [0026], lines 1-12);
determining, by the first application, a bedtime for the user based at least in part on the physiological data and the wakeup time restriction (paragraph [0020], lines 1-9; paragraph [0026], lines 1-12)… and
causing a graphical user interface associated with the first application of the user device to display a message or an alert based at least in part on the bedtime determined by the first application (paragraph [0020], lines 1-9).
Lawlor does not expressly teach wherein determining the bedtime comprises determining a recommended amount of sleep for the user based at least in part on the physiological data, the bedtime allowing the user to acquire the recommended amount of sleep prior to a scheduled time associated with the wakeup time restriction.
Lopes teaches wherein determining the bedtime comprises determining a recommended amount of sleep for the user based at least in part on the physiological data, the bedtime allowing the user to acquire the recommended amount of sleep prior to a scheduled time associated with the wakeup time restriction (paragraph [0116]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the recommended bedtime as taught by Lopes, since Lopes states in paragraph [0116] that such a modification would result in dynamically adjusting a recommended bedtime based upon a set wake-up time and a predetermined desired sleep duration.
As per claim 13, (see rejection of claim 2 above) the method of claim 12, further comprising:
identifying an alarm set by the user via the user device, wherein the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises a time associated with the alarm.
As per claim 15, Lawlor in view of Lopes further teaches the method of claim 12, wherein determining the bedtime for the user further comprises:
determining an optimum time for the user to go to bed based at least in part on historical sleep data collected by the first application, wherein the historical sleep data comprises historical bedtimes from the one or more previous days, an amount of sleep from the one or more previous days, a quality of sleep from one or more previous days, or a combination thereof (Lawlor, paragraph [0020], lines 1-9: sleep quality).
As per claim 21, (see rejection of claim 11 above) the method of claim 12, wherein the receiving physiological data further comprises:
receiving temperature data, motion data, heart rate data, or a combination thereof via the set of sensors of the wearable device.
As per claim 26, (see rejection of claim 12 above) an apparatus, comprising:
a processor (paragraph [0007]);
memory coupled with the processor (paragraph [0007]); and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to (paragraph [0007]):
receive, at a first application associated with a user device, physiological data associated with a user that is collected via a set of sensors of a wearable device;
receive, at the first application and from a second application associated with the user device, information indicating a wakeup time restriction for the user;
determine, by the first application, a bedtime for the user based at least in part on the physiological data and the wakeup time restriction , wherein determining the bedtime comprises determining a recommended amount of sleep for the user based at least in part on the physiological data, the bedtime allowing the user to acquire the recommended amount of sleep prior to a scheduled time associated with the wakeup time restriction; and
cause a graphical user interface associated with the first application of the user device to display a message or an alert based at least in part on the bedtime determined by the first application.
As per claim 27, (see rejection of claim 2 above) the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
identify an alarm set by the user via the user device, wherein the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises a time associated with the alarm.
As per claim 29, (see rejection of claim 15 above) the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the instructions to determine the bedtime for the user are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
determine an optimum time for the user to go to bed based at least in part on historical sleep data collected by the first application, wherein the historical sleep data comprises historical bedtimes from one or more previous days, an amount of sleep from the one or more previous days, a quality of sleep from the one or more previous days, or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 16, 17 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor in view of Lopes as applied above, and further in view of Zamarato et al. (Zamarato; US Pub No. 2021/0191779 A1).
As per claim 16, Lawlor in view of Lopes teaches the method of claim 12.
Lawlor in view of Lopes does not expressly teach further comprising:
alerting the user to get ready for bed based at least in part on the bedtime by gradually dimming one or more lights over time, where the one or more lights are associated with a user’s home, a user’s mobile device, or a combination thereof.
Zamarato teaches further comprising:
alerting the user to get ready for bed based at least in part on the bedtime by gradually dimming one or more lights over time, where the one or more lights are associated with a user’s home, a user’s mobile device, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the dimming of a light as taught by Zamarato, since Zamarato states in paragraph [0128] that such a modification would result in preparing a user to go to sleep at a desired time.
As per claim 17, Lawlor in view of Lopes teaches the method of claim 12.
Lawlor in view of Lopes does not expressly teach wherein alerting the user to get ready for bed further comprises:
turning off one or more devices in use by the user that inhibit sleep, the one or more devices comprising a user’s mobile device, a user’s television, a user’s computer, or a combination thereof.
Zamarato teaches wherein alerting the user to get ready for bed further comprises:
turning off one or more devices in use by the user that inhibit sleep, the one or more devices comprising a user’s mobile device, a user’s television, a user’s computer, or a combination thereof (paragraph [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to implement the shutting off of a device as taught by Zamarato, since Zamarato states in paragraph [0128] that such a modification would result in preparing a user to go to sleep at a desired time.
As per claim 30, (see rejection of claim 16 above) the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:
alert the user to get ready for bed based at least in part on the bedtime by gradually dimming one or more lights over time, where the one or more lights are associated with a user’s home, a user’s mobile device, or a combination thereof.
Claim(s) 14, 18 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor in view of Lopes as applied above, and further in view of Kahn.
As per claim 14, (see rejection of claim 3 above) the method of claim 12, wherein the second application comprises a calendar application and the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises a start time associated with one or more meetings, one or more appointments, one or more to-do items, or a combination thereof stored in the calendar application.
As per claim 18, (see rejection of claim 5 above) the method of claim 12, wherein the information associated with the user comprises future travel plans, past travel, current travel, changes to time due to daylight savings, upcoming events, an age of the user, a gender of the user, a chronotype of the user, a circadian rhythm of the user, or a combination thereof.
As per claim 28, (see rejection of claim 3 above) the apparatus of claim 26, wherein the second application comprises a calendar application and the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises a start time associated with one or more meetings, one or more appointments, one or more to-do items, or a combination thereof stored in the calendar application.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor in view of Lopes as applied above, and further in view of Sasaki.
As per claim 19, (see rejection of claim 6 above) the method of claim 12, wherein the information indicating the wakeup time restriction for the user comprises habits of the user, stored data associated with the user, or a combination thereof.
As per claim 20, (see rejection of claim 7 above) the method of claim 19, wherein the habits of the user comprise a work schedule, eating habits, exercise habits, sleep habits on work nights, sleep habits on non-work nights, or a combination thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the above claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI J SMALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at 571-272-3114. 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.
/NAOMI J SMALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
