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 office action for the 18/237339 application is in response to the communications filed April 08, 2026.
Claims 101-108 and 110-119 are currently pending and considered below.
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 101-108 and 110-119 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 101,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of receiving an input corresponding to a request to enter a sleep tracking mode, in response to the input, entering the sleep tracking mode, during the sleep tracking mode, causing a first set of user body temperature information to be collected, receiving notification data of a first type, in response to receiving the notification data of the first type, in accordance with a determination is not in the sleep tracking mode, outputting a first notification corresponding to the notification data of the first type, in accordance with a determination is currently in the sleep tracking mode, forgoing outputting the first notification corresponding to the notification data of the first type. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recites a list of rules or instructions that a human person or persons can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“A computer system configured to”, “a temperature sensor”, “comprising: one or more processors, and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for”, “via the temperature sensor” and “that the computer system” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Paragraph [0056] of the as-filed specification describes that the hardware of the computing system amounts to a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“communicate with a display generation component, one or more input devices,”, “via the one or more input devices”, “after causing the first set of user body temperature information to be collected, displaying, via display generation component, a body temperature user interface that includes representations of one or more sets of user body temperature information including the first set of user body temperature information;” and “displaying, via the display generation component, a first details user interface corresponding to the first set of user body temperature information that is not displayed in the body temperature user interface” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“communicate with a display generation component, one or more input devices, and a temperature sensor”, “via the one or more input devices”, “via the temperature sensor”, “after causing the first set of user body temperature information to be collected, displaying, via display generation component, a body temperature user interface that includes representations of one or more sets of user body temperature information including the first set of user body temperature information;” and “displaying, via the display generation component, a first details user interface corresponding to the first set of user body temperature information that is not displayed in the body temperature user interface” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 102,
Claim 102 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 102 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“receiving … a second input corresponding to a request to enter a first silent mode different from the sleep tracking mode; in response to receiving the second input, entering the first silent mode without initiating a process to collect body temperature information; receiving second notification data of the first type; and in response to receiving the second notification data of the first type: in accordance with a determination … is not in the first silent mode and that the computer system is not in the sleep tracking mode, outputting a second notification corresponding to the second notification data of the first type; and in accordance with a determination … is currently in the first silent mode, forgoing outputting a notification corresponding to the second notification data of the first type.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for” and “that the computer system” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“via the one or more input devices” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 103,
Claim 103 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 103 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“receiving… a third input corresponding to a request to define a sleep schedule, wherein the sleep schedule includes, for at least a first day, a first sleep start time and a first sleep end time; subsequent to receiving the third input: in accordance with a determination that a current time corresponds to the first sleep start time, entering the sleep tracking mode; and in accordance with a determination that the current time does not correspond to the first sleep start time, forgoing entering the sleep tracking mode.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for:” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“via the one or more input devices” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 104,
Claim 104 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 104 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein causing the first set of user body temperature information to be collected includes: causing a first external device separate from the computer system to collect the first set of user body temperature information;” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“receiving the first set of user body temperature information from the first external device.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 105,
Claim 105 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 105 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: prior to receiving the input, displaying, via the display generation component, the body temperature user interface, including: in accordance with a determination that a threshold amount of body temperature information has not been collected, displaying an indication that the threshold amount of body temperature information has not been collected; and in accordance with a determination that the threshold amount of body temperature information has been collected, displaying representations of one or more sets of user body temperature information without displaying the indication that the threshold amount of body temperature information has not been collected.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 106,
Claim 106 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 106 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: subsequent to displaying the body temperature user interface that includes the representations of one or more sets of user body temperature information, displaying a second instance of the body temperature user interface, wherein: in accordance with a determination that a second set of criteria are satisfied, the second instance of the body temperature user interface includes representations of a second set of user body temperature information; and in accordance with a determination that the second set of criteria are not satisfied, the second instance of the body temperature user interface does not include the representations of the second set of user body temperature information and includes a second indication indicating that the second set of criteria are not satisfied.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 107,
Claim 107 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 107 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for: while displaying the body temperature user interface, receiving, via the one or more input devices, a selection input; and in response to receiving the selection input: in accordance with a determination that the selection input corresponds to selection of a first timeframe option corresponding to a first timeframe, displaying, within the body temperature user interface, representations of one or more sets of user body temperature information corresponding to the first timeframe; and in accordance with a determination that the selection input corresponds to selection of a second timeframe option different from the first timeframe option, wherein the second timeframe option corresponds to a second timeframe different from the first timeframe, displaying, within the body temperature user interface, representations of one or more sets of user body temperature information corresponding to the second timeframe.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 108,
Claim 108 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 108 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the representations of one or more sets of user body temperature information includes one or more relative temperature measurements.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 110,
Claim 110 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 110 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the first details user interface includes: a start time corresponding to the first set of user body temperature information; and an end time corresponding to the first set of user body temperature information.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 111,
Claim 111 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 111 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein: the body temperature user interface includes relative body temperature information corresponding to the first set of user body temperature information; and the first details user interface includes one or more absolute body temperature measurements corresponding to the first set of user body temperature information.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 112,
Claim 112 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 112 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the first details user interface includes external device information corresponding to the first set of user body temperature information.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 113,
Claim 113 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 113 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“receiving first notification data corresponding to one or more messages received from a first external user and/or one or more messages received from a first application; in response to receiving the first notification data: in accordance with a determination … is not in the sleep tracking mode, outputting a second notification corresponding to the first notification data; and in accordance with a determination … is currently in the sleep tracking mode, and that the first notification data comprises notification data of a second type, forgoing outputting the second notification corresponding to the first notification data.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for” and “that the computer system” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 114,
Claim 114 depends from claim 113 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 114 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“in response to receiving the first notification data: in accordance with a determination … is currently in the sleep tracking mode, and that the first notification data comprises notification data of a third type different from the second type, outputting the second notification corresponding to the first notification data.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for” and “that the computer system” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 115,
Claim 115 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 115 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein the one or more programs further include instructions for:” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“during the sleep tracking mode: in accordance with a determination that the computer system is in the sleep tracking mode, causing a second external device different from the computer system to display an indication that the computer system has suppressed notifications.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 116,
Claim 116 depends from claim 106 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 116 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein: the representations of one or more sets of user body temperature information includes: a representation of a third set of user body temperature information collected by a second external device separate from the computer system; and a representation of a fourth set of user body temperature information different from the second set of user body temperature information and collected by a third external device different from the second external device and the computer system.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 117,
Claim 117 is substantially similar to claim 101. Accordingly, Claim 117 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 101.
As per claim 118,
Claim 118 is substantially similar to claim 101. Accordingly, Claim 118 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 101.
As per claim 119,
Claim 119 depends from claim 101 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 119 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“causing the first set of user body temperature information to be collected”, “outputting the first notification corresponding to the notification data of the first type”, “output a second notification corresponding to the notification data of the first type”, “forgoing outputting the first notification corresponding to the notification data of the first type includes: forgoing outputting the first notification corresponding to the notification data of the first type” and “forgoing … output the second notification corresponding to the notification data of the first type” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“via the temperature sensor includes causing the external device to collect the first set of user body temperature information”, “wherein the external device includes the temperature sensor” and “at the computer system” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
“wherein: the computer system is configured to communicate with an external device,”, “includes causing the external device to”, and “causing the external device to” .” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 101-108 and 110-119 contain subject matter free of prior art.
The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references with adequate rationale to combine, to teach the limitations of “displaying, via display generation component, a body temperature user interface that includes representations of one or more sets of user body temperature information including the first set of user body temperature information; and displaying, via the display generation component, a first details user interface corresponding to the first set of user body temperature information that is not displayed in the body temperature user interface” in the context of the pending claims. The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find was:
Shouldice et al. (US 2016/0151603; herein referred to as Shouldice): which teaches a monitor such as a non-contact motion sensor from which sleep information may be determined. User sleep information, such as sleep stages, hypnograms, sleep scores, mind recharge scores and body scores, may be recorded, evaluated and/or displayed for a user. The system may further monitor ambient and/or environmental conditions corresponding to sleep sessions. FIG. 12 illustrates a methodology for sleep tracking such as with a connected accessory processing device (e.g., motion sensor monitor and smart phone) during a sleep session; in this example, sleep tracking with phone connected occurs, and remains connected for the full sleep session. Once the Bed Side (BeD) device starts tracking sleep and a smart device remains connected, the RM20 library located in the smart device process data it receives in near real-time. The BeD can, for example, operate in one of 2 states: (a) Out-of-session and (b) In-session. While in the out-of-session state the BeD will not respond to any remote procedure calls (“RPCs”) apart from a session open request. It will respond to all such RPCs with a failure response. Following power up or reset the initial state will be out-of-session. RPC 16 (request session) is used with this feature. Exiting the in-session state will trigger the generation and storage of appropriate notifications. Notifications are generated and either sent to a connected and in-session SmD or queued for later transmission.
Gopalakrishnan (US 2021/0074421): which teaches an automated sleep tracking system is presented in the tenth aspect of the invention. The accelerometer signals, body temperature, blood pressure data and blood sugar values are initially evaluated for state of sleep. The variations in blood pressure and blood sugar values are compared against the wake levels, and then derived HP1, HP2 and HP3 parameters are furthered analyzed for recognizing NREM sleep cycle and REM sleep cycle. However, this reference does not explicitly teach the display of the monitored body temperature data and notifying users based on whether the device is in sleep tracking mode.
Connor (US 2019/0099009): which teaches an analysis of data from a wearable EEG monitor can indicate when person 301 is probably awake, asleep, or in the process of falling asleep. In the example shown in FIG. 3, when data from the EEG monitor indicates that the person is awake, then the wrist-worn component emits sound-based notifications of incoming communications. This is shown on the left side of FIG. 3. In another example, these notifications can be vibratory. However, when data from the EEG monitor indicates that the person is asleep (or in the process of falling asleep), then the wrist-worn component filters incoming communications and does not emit any sound-based or vibratory notifications. However, this reference does not explicitly teach the display of the monitored body temperature data.
Yuen (US 2014/0297218): which teaches automatically detect or determine when the user is attempting to go to sleep, is entering sleep, is asleep, and/or is awoken from a period of sleep. In such embodiments, the biometric monitoring device may employ physiological sensors to acquire data and the data processing circuitry of the biometric monitoring device may correlate a combination of heart rate, heart rate variability, respiration rate, galvanic skin response, motion, skin temperature, and/or body temperature data collected from sensors of the biometric monitoring device to detect or determine if the user is attempting to go to sleep, is entering sleep, is asleep, and/or is awoken from a period of sleep. In response, the biometric monitoring device may, for example, acquire physiological data (of the types, and in the manners, as described herein) and/or determine physiological conditions of the user (of the types, and in the manners, as described herein). For example, a decrease or cessation of user motion combined with a reduction in user heart rate and/or a change in heart rate variability may indicate that the user has fallen asleep. Subsequent changes in heart rate variability and galvanic skin response may then be used by the biometric monitoring device to determine transitions of the user's sleep state between two or more stages of sleep (for example, into lighter and/or deeper stages of sleep). Motion by the user and/or an elevated heart rate and/or a change in heart rate variability may be used by the biometric monitoring device to determine that the user has awoken. If the controller determines that the user is asleep or likely asleep, the controller may delay providing notification that the user has not moved more than the threshold movement amount to the user to a later time period, such as a time period when the controller determines that the wearer is not asleep or likely not to be asleep. However, this reference does not explicitly teach the display of the monitored body temperature data.
As it can be seen, none of the cited prior art references teaches the limitations of the pending claims. Even if it could be established that the prior art could teach these limitations, a combination to teach the limitations of the pending claims would have only arisen from impermissible hindsight reasoning. Accordingly, claims 101-108 and 110-119 contain subject matter free of prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 08, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the pending claims provide an improved user interface for an electronic device similar to Example 37 of the 2019 PEG. Specifically, claim 1 recites entering a sleep tracking mode in which notification outputs are optimized. Determining when to display a notification based on system mode provides benefit because the system suppresses notifications when the user is unlikely to view them. This feature improves device efficiency and battery life. Preventing these notifications also aids in avoiding waking the user while sleep mode is active, thereby improving human-machine user interfaces and user satisfaction with the computer system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of these considerations have anything to do with Example 37 of the 2019 PEG. Example 37 was found to be eligible because the way in which icons were re-arranged based on usage constituted an improvement in GUI technology. In contrast, the pending claims merely provide a system by which notifications are preferentially suppressed based on system mode. Nothing about how the notification is being displayed is being changed, but rather when. This does not constitute an improvement to technology because technology is not being changed. Only its usage is being changed. The assertion that the claimed display improves device efficiency is made with no evidence or specificity to what efficiency is allegedly present. This is not persuasive. The advantage in battery life is similarly not persuasive because the only reason battery life is saved is because the display is not being used to display a notification. This is not so much an improvement to technology as it is a refrainment in use of technology. Again, this is not an improvement to technology because technology is bot being changed. The idea that these notifications can help prevent a user from waking is not a relevant consideration. There are a multitude of reasons for a user to wake or not wake from sleep. There are some users who will wake at any stimulus from or not from the claimed device. There are other user who will never wake from a notification from a device when sleeping. The problem of waking a user while they are sleeping is simply not a technical problem and as such, changing when notifications are displayed cannot provide an improvement to technology in this regard.
The Applicant further argues that suppressing notifications improves data collection from a user because waking a user from the stimulus of the notification can lead to erroneous temperature readings.
As is stated above, there is no basis to conclude that notifications necessarily wake a user. A notification being presented to a user when they are sleeping does not inherently cause erroneous temperature readings. Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude that temperature collection technology is being improved.
The Applicant further argues that displaying the collected data after the sleep tracking mode has ended provides the collected health information to the user when they are likely to view it, thereby improving the health tracking user interface and making it easier to use.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to provide any evidence that the claimed invention improves health tracking or ease of use of the GUI. The Applicant has merely asserted that by presenting notifications at a specified time display technology is somehow improved. This is a bare assertion of improvement that involves no change in how display technology functions. It only changes when technology functions.
The Applicant further argues that the claimed invention provides an improvement to technology similar to that of Core Wireless.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As was the case above with Example 37, Core Wireless was shown to be eligible because of an improvement to technology. The forgoing responses clearly demonstrate that the Applicant has failed to provide any evidence of the asserted technical improvements. Please refer to the above.
The Applicant further argues that by outsourcing temperature collection to an external device as in claim 104, the computer system is being improved by enhancing operability with fewer inputs and reduces power consumption of the computer system.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has again provided a bare assertion of improvement without providing evidence for their argument. The Examiner is not persuaded.
The Applicant further argues that determining when to display second information, as in claim 106, the computer system is being improved.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has again provided a bare assertion of improvement without providing evidence for their argument. The Examiner is not persuaded.
The Applicant further argues that determining when to display second information, as in claim 119, the computer system is being improved.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has again provided a bare assertion of improvement without providing evidence for their argument. The Examiner is not persuaded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (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, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights