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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on October 14, 2025 is acknowledged. Currently claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with claims 13-20 withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-12 recite a system, and therefore is a product. Therefore, the claims fall within the statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1 recite limitations of “transmit…a subjective sleep health questionnaire for presentation in a GUI display”, “receive…user input indicating at least one response the subjective sleep health questionnaire”, “process the user input to determine a circadian chronotype of the user”, and “identify, based on the circadian chronotype of the user, at least one insight for presentation in the GUI display at the user device.” The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind except for the recitation of “a computer system in communication with a user device” and “a graphical user interface (GUI) display.” For the limitation of “GUI display”, all steps recited in claim 1 are being performed by the “computer system”, not the “GUI display” and “GUI display” is not part of the claimed system rather part of a user device (see [0097] of the specification). That is, other than reciting that a computer system is performing these tasks, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind or being considered as methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states that the sub-grouping "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions and MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states that the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea.
For example, aside from the recitation of “a computer system” language, the claim encompasses the user providing a sleep health questionnaire to a patient and evaluating the response to identify circadian chronotype. These limitations can be considered as organizing human activity or a mental process.
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claims recite “a computer system” to perform the abstract steps. These components read on a computer implemented system and are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor, performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial except into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The specification in [0165] does not provide any indication that the computer is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim, as a whole, amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking). Accordingly, a conclusion that the generic computer functions merely being used to implement an abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
Dependent claims 2-12 further limit the abstract idea already indicated in independent claim 1 and they are ineligible for the same reasons provided for claim 1 above.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims and thus they are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shaw (WO 2022/101810, as cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Shaw discloses a system for improving at least one of a sleep quality and a health metric of a user, the system comprising (e.g. collection system 100; Figure 1; [0034]): a computer system in communication with a user device of a user (e.g. data collection system 100 that includes serves 110, communication network 12, and mobile computing device 130), the computer system configured to:
transmit, to the user device, a subjective sleep health questionnaire for presentation in a graphical user interface (GUI) display (e.g. wearable application 276 which provides survey response interface 400 generated by operating system 274; [0055]);
receive, from the user device, user input indicating at least one response to the subjective sleep health questionnaire (e.g. user data includes the results of the quiz; [0055]);
process the user input to determine a circadian chronotype of the user (e.g. analyzing the user data that includes the quiz results to determine the classification of the chronotype of the user; [0055]);
identify, based on the circadian chronotype of the user, at least one insight for presentation in the GUI display at the user device (e.g. using the collected data to send notifications to the wearable device to shift patient’s alertness waveform shape; [0079]); and
transmit, to the user device, the at least one insight for presentation in the GUI display (e.g. display of the tips on the wearable device; [0079]).
Regarding claim 2, Shaw additionally discloses wherein the at least one insight is a behavior recommendation to improve a current circadian rhythm of the user over a predetermined period of time (e.g. using the data to further personalize the user’s clock and thus shift the alertness waveform shape for the specific user; [0079]).
Regarding claim 4, Shaw additionally discloses the questionnaire prompts the user for user input about at least one of user-perceived circadian rhythm, user-perceived stress, user- perceived trouble falling asleep, and user-perceived trouble staying asleep (e.g. questionnaire 800 as shown in Figure 8 shows questions including “How easy do you find getting up int eh morning” which is subjective; [0089]).
Regarding claim 5, Shaw additionally discloses wherein the at least one insight includes a recommendation of when the user should exercise (e.g. schedule interface 420 shows the optimal schedule based on the chronotype of the user including exercise; Figure 4C).
Regarding claim 6, Shaw additionally discloses wherein the at least one insight includes a recommendation of when the user is most alert during a predetermined period of time (e.g. wearable device shows information relating to an individual’s alertness levels during the day according to their chronotype; [0037]).
Regarding claim 7, Shaw additionally discloses wherein the at least one insight includes a recommendation of when the user should eat a meal (e.g. schedule interface 420 shows the optimal schedule based on the chronotype of the user including breakfast, caffeine, lunch, and dinner that may be selected by the user; Figure 4C; [0057]).
Regarding claim 8, Shaw additionally discloses wherein the at least one insight includes a recommendation of when the user should begin a bedtime routine (e.g. wearable device 150 transitions to night mode and gives tips about bedtime routine such as recommendations that all screens are turned off, or to wind down and relax; Figure 10, [0095]).
Regarding claim 9, Shaw additionally discloses wherein the at least one insight includes a notification prompting the user to perform an activity that improves at least one of a current health metric and a current sleep quality of the user (e.g. using wearable device 150 to alert the user of the wearable device 150 when peak alertness times or lull times are, and suggest different activities based on the chronotype and time of day to maximize performance; Figure 4C; [0054]).
Regarding claim 10, Shaw additionally discloses wherein the subjective sleep health questionnaire prompts the user for an indication of whether the user is an early bird, a night owl, or neutral (e.g. last question of the questionnaire in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 11, Shaw additionally discloses wherein the subjective sleep health questionnaire prompts the user for an indication of at least one factor that disrupts sleep patterns of the user (e.g. questions on the questionnaire in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 12, Shaw additionally discloses wherein to select at least one insight from the subset of insights, the computer system is configured to assemble the subset of insights from a template of general insights that have been completed with information generic to a population of users that include the user (e.g. wherein a machine learning model may be trained to automatically determine a chronotype for a user and the collection of data from a user population may be used to train a machine learning model to correlate input factors to specific chronotypes as well as determine a specific sinusoid for each user; [0105] – [0106]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw in view of Kimbrell (US 2007/0146116).
Regarding claim 3, Shaw discloses the claimed invention except the express mention of using a randomization technique to choose the given one insight from the subset of insights for presentation to the user. Randomization of encouragement or tips is well known in the art, as taught by Kimbrell (e.g. providing random encouragement to the user; [0046]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the randomization of Kimbrell in the device of Shaw since such a modification would provide the system with the predictable results of a reliable means of providing the user information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda K Hulbert whose telephone number is (571)270-1912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/Amanda K Hulbert/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792