Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 12 follows.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including displaying, via the display generation component, based on the sleep data, a sleep representation that categorizes the sleep period into a plurality of sleep stages. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step of indicating in accordance with a determination that the first data corresponds exclusively to a first sleep stage of the plurality of sleep stages, that the first sub-period is a first type of sleep period that corresponds to the first sleep stage and the step of indicating in accordance with a determination the first data does not exclusively correspond to a single sleep stage of the plurality of sleep stages, that first sub-period corresponds to at least a second sleep stage and a third sleep stage of the plurality of sleep stages that is different from the second sleep stage sets forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 12 recites displaying the sleep representation includes displaying a first indication corresponding to the first sub-period of the sleep period, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The display of the indication does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the displayed indication, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Ideas, the claim recites additional step of receiving, from the one or more input devices, sleep data corresponding to a sleep period. Obtaining sleep data is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the receiving step is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited display generation component is a generic display device configured to perform indication displaying, and the one or more processors of the computer system is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The same rationale applies to claim 11.
The dependent claims of claim 12 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claim as they generally recite generic steps to display data. The receiving, determination and indication steps recited in the independent claim maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Examiner’s Note
In regards to claims 1, 11, and 12, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a system or method configured to indicate that a sub period of sleep corresponds to at least a second sleep stage and a third sleep stage of a plurality of sleep stages, in combination with the other claimed elements/steps.
Claims 1-30 contain no prior art rejections, however they are not in condition for allowance due to their rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 in regards to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 1-12 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The dependent claims merely display the health data in different ways in response to user input, not the sleep stages that are determined. Applicant argues that an improvement has been made because the invention provides more accurate sleep data, there is not sufficient evidence provided of the claimed improvement.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/13/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 12 has have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 12 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/LUCY EPPERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791