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 12/5/2025 in which claims 1-8 and 10-20 have been amended. Thus, the claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/5/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2025 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, based on both the first information and the second information, determine a sleep quality score of the user, and display, through the display, the determined sleep quality score of the user, wherein the first information comprises exercise information of the user during a non-sleep period, 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. 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 2-10 and 12-20 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 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in view of amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 12/5/2025 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 the claims integrate any abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claimed features provide an unconventional manner to obtain a sleep quality score. Specifically, the first information being exercise information during a non-sleep period for use in a sleep score is an unconventional use of data, and then storing scores corresponding to designated ranges associated with the exercise information and the second information, and 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 used to determine the sleep score, thereby improving the sleep quality determination of the user.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that obtaining a sleep quality score may be unconventional but the use of additional elements is not. The additional elements are merely applying the abstract idea of obtaining a sleep quality score which does not amount to integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more. There is no technical improvements when the additional elements apply the abstract idea of obtaining a sleep quality score. In the absence of a technical improvement, the additional elements simply apply the abstract idea. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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