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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 5/26/2026 in which claims 1 and 11 have been amended, claims 9-10 and 19-20 have been canceled. Thus, the claims 1-8 and 11-18 are pending in the application.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of providing information about sleep quality without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the representative claim that represents the invention described in independent claims 1 and 11.
Claim 1 is directed to an electronic device, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 is directed to an electronic device comprising: a sensor comprising an acceleration sensor and a photoplethysmogram sensor; a display; at least one processor comprising circuitry; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: obtain, using the sensor, first information during a day and second information during a sleep, wherein the first information comprises exercise information of the user during a non-sleep period; based on both the first information and the second information, determine a sleep quality score of the user, wherein the memory stores scores corresponding to designated ranges associated with the first information and the second information, wherein, based on the scores and the designated ranges, a first score corresponding to a first designated range to which the first information belongs and a second score corresponding to a second designated range to which the second information belongs are obtained, and wherein, based on the first score and the second score, the sleep quality score of the user is determined, determine a sleep factor causing a decrease in the determined sleep quality score from among a plurality of sleep factors included in the first information and the second information, display, through the display, the determined sleep factor and information indicating an effect of the sleep factor on the determined sleep quality score together with the determined sleep quality score of the user, obtain user information of the user, obtain a sleep score distribution of a group corresponding to the user information, based on the sleep quality score, the user information, and the sleep score distribution of the group, determine a sleep grade of the user among entire sleep grades of the group, and display, through the display, the sleep grade of the user together with the sleep quality score.
These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of providing information about sleep quality which corresponds to a certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract in nature. The additional elements of a sensor, acceleration sensor, a photoplethysmogram sensor, display, processor, memory, and electronic device do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a sensor, acceleration sensor, a photoplethysmogram sensor, display, processor, memory, and electronic device result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a sensor, acceleration sensor, a photoplethysmogram sensor, display, processor, memory, and electronic device are all recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprise a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a sensor, acceleration sensor, a photoplethysmogram sensor, display, processor, memory, and electronic device result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a sensor, acceleration sensor, a photoplethysmogram sensor, display, processor, memory, and electronic device are all recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 12-18 further define the abstract idea that is present in the respective independent claims 1 and 11 and thus correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity and hence are abstract in nature. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2-10 and 12-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-8 and 11-18 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed dated 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that claim 1 provides a practical application of the sleep quality score in that the recited device dynamically extracts, from different types of data obtained during sleep or outside sleep (e.g., before falling asleep), a specific technical variable contributing to a decrease in the score, quantifies and provides a correlation (e.g., effect) between the data and the sleep score, and guides the user regarding sleep factors adversely affecting the sleep quality score, thereby providing an improved manner of evaluating sleep quality.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that dynamically extracting data and variable and providing correlation are examples of abstract concepts and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There is no technical improvement as a result of these features. Improving the process of evaluating sleep quality is an improvement to an abstract idea which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. There is no technical improvement and the additional elements are present to apply the abstract idea without transforming the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, the combination of operations is not merely a simple process that could be readily performed by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that under Step 2B, the focus of consideration is on additional elements to determine if the additional elements amount to significantly more. In this case, it was determined that the additional elements simply apply the abstract idea without amounting to add significantly more.
Applicant also states that under Step 2A, Prong 2, the features are not merely directed to calculating and displaying a generic sleep score. Rather, the above features provide a practical application of physiological monitoring by generating a personalized sleep evaluation based on heterogeneous physiological information obtained from different temporal periods.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that there is no technical improvement as a result of this. If there is an improvement, it is to the abstract idea and not to technology. Physiological monitoring is an abstract concept and cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant states that the ordered combination of: (i) heterogeneous sensors including an acceleration sensor and a photoplethsmogram sensor, (ii) combined processing of non-sleep-period information and sleep-period information, (iii) designated range and score mapping structures, (iv) identification of a sleep factor causing deterioration of sleep quality, (v) analysis of an effect of the sleep factor on the sleep quality score, and (vi) user-group-based sleep grade determination using a sleep score distribution corresponding to user information, is not merely a generic implementation or routine data processing.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as the additional elements are merely applying the abstract idea. There is no technical improvement and the limitations are abstract in nature and the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality in that it amounts to simply applying the abstract idea without amounting to add significantly more.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights