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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to communications filed February 04, 2026. Claims 4, 11, 15, 21, 24, 25 and 29 have been amended. Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8-13, 15, 21-27 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2)as being anticipated by Lawlor et al. (Lawlor; US Pub No. 2022/0105307 A1).
As per claim 1, Lawlor discloses 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).
As per claim 2, Lawlor discloses 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 (paragraph [0026], lines 11-12).
As per claim 4, Lawlor discloses 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 (paragraph [0026], lines 7-20).
As per claim 8, Lawlor discloses 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 (paragraph [0026]).
As per claim 9, Lawlor discloses 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 (paragraph [0026], lines 8-20).
As per claim 10, Lawlor discloses 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 (paragraph [0026], lines 14-17).
As per claim 11, Lawlor discloses 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 (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 (paragraph [0026], lines 1-7; paragraph [0014]: physiological data collected by wearable monitoring device transmitted to a user’s smartphone).
As per claim 12, Lawlor discloses 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 for the user from the second application (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).
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 discloses 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 (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 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; 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.
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 for the user from the second application; 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 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) 3, 5, 14, 18 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor in view of Kahn et al. (Kahn; US Patent No. 10,842,968 B1).
As per claim 3, Lawlor teaches the method of claim 1.
Lawlor 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 teaches the method of claim 1.
Lawlor 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.
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) 6, 7, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor in view of Sasaki et al. (Sasaki; US Pub No. 2013/0252591 A1).
As per claim 6, Lawlor teaches the method of claim 1.
Lawlor 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 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).
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.
Claim(s) 16, 17 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawlor in view of Zamarato et al. (Zamarato; US Pub No. 2021/0191779 A1).
As per claim 16, Lawlor teaches the method of claim 12.
Lawlor 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 teaches the method of claim 12.
Lawlor 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 04, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of Lawlor does not teach the claim limitation “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” (Remarks, pgs. 9-10), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Lawlor teaches based on learned sleep patterns and trends for a user, identifying a short time window prior to a scheduled wakeup time beginning to slowly transition the user from a deep sleep state a light sleep state in order to gently awaken the user at the scheduled wakeup time (Lawlor, paragraph [0026]). The identified short time window is the time in which the user is slowly transitioned from deep sleep, to light sleep, and then finally to an awakened state. This time window is also based upon learned sleep patterns and trends of the user for identifying a user sleep stage. Additionally, the short time window is placed before the scheduled wakeup time. Therefore, the identified short time window of Lawlor teaches the determined wakeup time for the user as claimed.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that the prior art of Lawlor does not teach the claim limitation determining a bedtime for the user based on the wakeup time restriction for the user from the second application (Remarks, pg. 11), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Lawlor teaches learning a user’s sleep patterns and trends and providing optimal timing based on the user’s learned behavior and scheduled wakeup time. Therefore, in order for the user to wake up at a scheduled time while having optimal sleep, the system will suggest a bedtime which takes into account the user’s learned environment and the user’s learned behavior. With that, the prior art of Lawlor teaches the limitation determining a bedtime for the user based on the wakeup time restriction for the user from the second application as outlined in the rejection above.
The above arguments are equally applied to all dependent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights